Dear authors,
Thank you for your very thorough response to the reviewers’ comments. I have a few very minor points that I would like to see addressed before I can recommend your manuscript for publication.
- The use of R2 is a bit imprecise. Typically, the coefficient of determination is used as an indicator for the correlation between two datasets. However, in some places (e.g lines 590-594, 719-723) the two datasets are not explicitly stated. Presumably, it is observations vs. model results but it would be a help to the reader if this was clarified (e.g. similar to what is stated in lines 643-646).
- The figures showing maps of the two glacier (Figs. 3, 8,10 and 11) would be easier to read if a “G” and “W” were added (if possible).
- In response to reviewer #1 ’s comment to line 642, please state that details on interpolation scheme and geodetic calibrations can be found in van Beusekom et al., 2010 and O’Neel et al., 2014.
- I agree with M. Pelto’s request to line 387 re. mentioning how much the observed observations exceeded model results. In view of the large amount of data, it would be sufficient to give an example so the reader has an idea of the magnitude of the values. Something along the lines of “For example, in 2015 observed SWE exceeded modelled SWE by more/less than X amount for Y% of data points”.
I hope that you are willing to incorporate these changes so we can move forward with your interesting study.
Best,
Nanna