Dear Anna Haberkorn and co-authors,

We have heard back from the review of your Revised Submission. The review notes that the revised version of the manuscript can be published after some minor revisions. Please consider the reviewer suggestions as you prepare your second revision.

I have also examined your revision and responses to the previous round of review. I find that you have made considerable efforts to improve the paper and your aggregate response is satisfactory.

Based on the Reviewer recommendation and my assessment of your responses to the previous round of review, the editorial decision is that your paper may be acceptable for publication after Minor Revision. The review is included below.

Your paper has been much improved by the revision, and it is now close to being ready for acceptance. I will examine the second revision; if it is indeed responsive to the reviewer suggestions, it will not need to undergo another round of review.

Be sure to meet all recommendations on the guidelines for quickest processing of the revised manuscript.

Thank you for your substantial effort in addressing the first round of reviewer comments. We look forward to receiving your second, and hopefully final, revision.

Kind regards,
Ketil Isaksen

Guest Editor
The Cryosphere


## Referee report
Considerable efforts were made by the authors to improve the paper taking into account the different comments.

This results in a high quality paper which is pleasant to read and is easier to follow than it was. Therefore, I only have a few specific comments before paper is accepted for publication.

1. L15: “point- and spatial-scales”
2. L43-46: the content of this sentence is repeated below L105-110. Please, avoid repetitions in the introduction.
3. L47: wouldn’t “variably inclined” be more accurate than “variable inclined”?
4. L130: “is shown” since it refers to the synopsis
5. L132: Remove “in order”, “is essential for” is enough
6. L139: Add a comma after “To do this”
7. L151: I personally prefer “3D” rather than “3d”, it is more consistent with common expression and with “Alpine3D”
8. L400: I may have missed something but I don’t understand want 2.2 and 2.3°C are respectively referring to. The same is true for all the following expressions of this kind
9. L413: Please consider that a temperature is not “warm” or “cold”, but “low” or “high”: so this would be “higher” MAN
10. L530: is it “adequacy”? or “inadequacy”??
11. L661: “a” MAE

Dear Anna Haberkorn and co-authors,

I have examined your revision and your responses. Given this revision and responses, together with the improvements you made in preparing the earlier revision, I am pleased to accept your paper for publication in The Cryosphere.

Your paper will likely be of considerable interest to the journal’s readership.

Sincerely,
Ketil Isaksen
Guest Editor
The Cryosphere