Dear Authors,

Thanks for the thorough revision of your paper and for taking into account or answering to the reviewer’s comments. Before final acceptance, I feel that some points still need to be addressed. They are listed below. The choice of the density for volume-to-mass conversion is the main remaining issue.

To speed-up the review process, please attach to your revised manuscript a cover letter detailing the changes you made in response to all my comments. Make sure this rebuttal letter makes a clear distinction between these comments, your responses and the changes you made to the manuscript.

Best regards,

Etienne Berthier

L13-14. Both reviewers and I agreed that the link between climate fluctuations and mass balance is currently not really demonstrated. "appear" suggest this in the abstract but I also ask you to add a statement clarifying that this link is based on very thin data and need further work: "However, further measurements and analysis are required to fully understand the mass balance sensitivity of Labrador glaciers". (feel free to use a different wording but this is the idea)

L44. "w.e." not defined

L45. Glacier missing here I think after "Superguksoak"

L48. 1986a? Check the correct call for the Rogerson-1986 references.

L200. Currently authors used a constant density of 918 kg/m3 to convert volume to mass. No error is associated to this choice and the use of this value has not been justified. Such a pure ice density (I though pure ice density was 917 kg/m3 but maybe I am wrong here) would be only justified if NO firn was present over the glaciers during ALL surveys. Is it the case? Otherwise a lower density should be applied as justified by Huss, M.: Density assumptions for converting geodetic glacier volume change to mass change, The Cryosphere, 7(3), 877–887, doi:10.5194/tc-7-877-2013, 2013. In all cases, an uncertainty should be added.

L271. "with the largest changes": authors should write "thinning" here. Otherwise the positive values in the parenthesis that follow could be misinterpreted as a thickening...

L290. authors can skip geodetic but not "mass" here

L358. The use of "preceding" here and also earlier (L328) ambiguous. A mass balance year is made of an accumulation season followed by an ablation season. Thus, the "preceding" accumulation season could be mis-interpreted as the one from the previous mass balance year. Avoid such ambiguity.

L388. Delete (Figure 4). No need to call a figure in the conclusion

L391. Your acceleration in the thinning rate and the very negative mass balances after 2005 are in line with the findings of Papasodoro et al. for the nearby (300 km further north) Terra Nivae ice cap (http://www.the-cryosphere.net/9/1535/2015/). You may thus compare yours and their value. It would give a more regional scope to your conclusions.

Legend of Figure 2. "base stations" (space missing I think)

Thanks for your final amendments to the manuscript. It is my pleasure to accept it for publication in The Cryosphere.