Most of the referees' comments are addressed in the response. I think that some clarification is in order in at least one case, and that one of the figures need to be a little easier to look at. If these changes can be made, I don't think the manuscript needs a second round of reviews.

Revisions requested:

The referees had trouble with the term ‘dominant,’ and I also had trouble understanding what it meant in the manuscript. The authors, I think, try to establish that their feedback-driven change in basal shear stress is possibly sufficient to explain the changes in glacier speed, which would imply that ongoing enhanced melt is not necessary to explain the changes in the glacier. But this does not establish one process or the other as dominant. I think a little bit of clarification early in the paper would help.

Figure 4: The figure numbers are illegible. The letters should be in a large font, in black, on a white background. In the left and middle columns, indicate the year as well. This is done much better in figure 5.

Reviewer 3 was correct that Figs 4d and 4e are very difficult to interpret. The lines are far too thin and the colors used to indicate the basal elevation obscure the contours badly. The differences in hydraulic potential between the 2008 and 2015 fields are not visible in 4d and 4e, amounting (4f) to only 1-2 contours’ difference. Since the text only mentions 4f in passing, and because 4d and 4e are visibly identical, but hard to read, I recommend removing 4d-4f, and generating a single-panel figure showing only the hydraulic potential in 2015 (or 2008), with either a color table or contour labels to indicate the hydropotential, and describing the changes between the two years with words.

OK. Looks good. Thanks for the revisions.

Best
Ben