Dear authors,

thanks for addressing the comments from reviewers. I still have a few comments that I would like to see addressed before the paper can move to publication.

1) I would like to ask you to consider, if possible, to add something to the title that suggests that the model here proposed is calibrated using MAR outputs. This should also be stressed (with this aspect more important than the title) in the text, especially in the discussion and conslusions sections. The outptus of the regional climate model used to calibrate the model are heavily dependent on the version used (here 3.2) and the forcing. The authors need to highlight this and, particularly, that the model can reproduce MAR outputs but care should be taken to claim the validitity of SEMIC as presented in this study. Also, it would be important for the authors to suggest how the model can be used in a more general way and what would be the impact of using different MAR (or RACMO ?) versions on the results.

The other point is that the authors offer no validaiton of the results using in-situ measurements. Is this something that can be at least discussed ?

2) the second important point is that the paper lacks of appropriate references. I would strongly encourage the authors to update them and increase their number. This should be done throughout the paper. As an example (though , again, the authors should check through the whole paper), in Section 3 there is no justification or reference for choosing the snow height to 1 m. Also, references to previous work concerning snow energy balance should be added together with those referencing to the origin of equations used and the choices made (as , for example, the case mentioned above). again, this should be properly done throughout the paper.

3) Figures dont have labeling for each panel. These should be added and captions should be changed accordingly. figures 5 and 6 are not clearly legible. It is impossible to separate between the MAR- and SEMIC-modeled quantities. Authors should improve these figures. Figure 7 is missing units on the left panels. Also, units are usually reported in square parentheses. Figure 10: 'lighter colours' is not a good reference for readers. Authors should include a label or similar to indicate the different quantities associated with the colors.

Lastly, I would encourage the authors to check for other editorial issue that I might have missed and refer to previously published papers for examples.

Thanks,
M. Tedesco

Dear authors,

thanks for providing the revised version of the manuscript. I appreciate your effort in replying to reviewers and my comments. I am afraid I still would like to ask you some clarifications and make some changes to the manuscript. In particular, I am still struggling with the title and the overall message that comes out from the paper. The way it is now, the title suggests that the model is general and does not mention the fact that the results here reported are mostly concerning specific MAR outputs. I would like to see this better expressed in the title. Also, I would like to see better stressed out in the Discussion and Conclusions. The authors now mention that SEMIC is 'forced' by MAR but it is still not clear that some of the parts needed to run SEMIC are obtained from MAR. Lastly, I would like to aks the authors to add a justification for the absence of validation of the SEMIC outputs with in-situ observations.

Best,
Marco

The authors have addressed all points and I am happy to recommend the paper for publication