Dear Terry,

Thanks you for your revised version of the reply on VDVs comment on your paper recently published in TC. While the revised version has been considerably improved compared to the initial version, there are still some things that I (and the referees that initially commented on this version) would like to see revised. I noted in detail my remarks directly on the manuscript attached. The way I see things is that VDV tried to reconcile the analytical and geometric approaches, which is as far as I know, the first time this has been done, or tried at least. His analysis of the force balance is correct and the reconciliation of both methods is not straightforward. I think you understand this well. His derivations are not exactly yours, but they shouldn't be. He derives them in a completely different way (not using triangles, but applying the approximations you describe in your paper to his analytical balance to derive other - SIMILAR - equations that may become comparable to yours). Please take care of the wording here: similar, not the same. My annotations in your reply should help guiding you in turning the reply that may aid and improving the reconciliation between both methods.
Kind regards,
-Frank

Dear Terry,
I am happy to formally accept your reply for publication in The Cryosphere. I Found one type on line 22, where 'become' should be 'becomes'.
Kind regards,
-Frank