Dear authors,

The article has undergone a new round of review. Both reviewers acknowledge that you have addressed most of their concerns and improved the paper. However, both reviewers still listed things to improve. While one reviewer requests only minor and technical corrections of the manuscript, another one has expressed major concerns (#2). Both reviewers' recommendations for changes are available in their reports and in the attached annotated manuscripts.


I agree with the first reviewer that the remaining issues and concerns are of minor character and should be straight forward to eliminate. Also the biggest concern of the second reviewer on the definition of new snow density can, in my opinion, and as also stated in the reviewer's report, be addressed by clearly statements and a thorough discussion in the paper and does not require new analyses, nor will it change the major point of the study.

I therefore ask you to proceed with minor editions of the manuscript as suggested by the referees and myself (see attached list of editor's minor/technical comments), and submit a final version of the manuscript which I hope I will be able to accept without further external review.

Yours sincerely,
Mareile Wolff

Dear authors,

Thank you for your assessment of the reviewers' feedback from this last review round and the revised manuscript which I'm glad to accept for publication only subject to technical corrections.

The added explanations and re-structuring of some sections have improved the overall readabilty significantly. I do, however, recommend another and thorough language check by a native speaker or professional service. A lot of sentences still inhibit some awkward wording or grammatical errors which hampers the reading flow.

I also want to acknowledge the time and work spent by the reviewers for evaluation and their insightful and helpful recommendations.

Yours sincerely,

Mareile Wolff
Special Issue Editor