|I would like to thank the authors for thorough consideration of the remarks made by both reviewers. All open questions have adequately been clarified in the author's response and appropriate measures were taken to adjust the revised version of the manuscript accordingly. I have a few minor remarks that should be implemented to round off these efforts. With that, I am looking forward for publication of this undoubtedly significant and useful contribution for assessing Antarctic ice/ocean interactions. Page and line numbers in my comments refer to the track-changed version of the revised manuscript that was attached to the previous author's response.|
The general melt rate curve: Although adding some challenges for the structure of this study, it is comprehensible that the full derivation of the general melt rate curve is reserved for another publication (adding an explicit statement of this in the manuscript would add even more clarity, I think). The revised version of the manuscript clarifies the respective contributions and introduces eqn. (7) and (8) accordingly as starting point for the development presented by this study, with more background on their origin in the Appendix. To this end, I suggest that all remaining material of section 2.2 that explains that physical meaning of the different scaling factors (p 7, line 28 and onwards) is also moved to the Appendix. Although being informative, the complicated theoretical considerations somewhat deviate from the main topic of the paper and are better understood in the context of the remaining material of the Appendix (i.e. when reading the main text, it remains ambiguous that the scaling factors being discussed explicitly appear in A9). As a minor comment on terminology, on page 7, line 19, for clarity replace "edge of the ice shelf" with "ice shelf front", which is the more commonly used.
2D melting parameterization and inverting temperature for melt rates: Although the authors comply with both reviewer's comments, the following aspects only appear in their response, but should also be mentioned explicitly in the paper:
- The algorithm to determine the local slope and grounding line depth also includes (unphysical) paths along reversed slopes of the ice base (could either be included in p. 12, line 15 and following or in the discussion).
- Although stratification being mentioned as an uncertainty, its role should be clarified, i.e. that because of stratification, plumes arising from grounding lines may totally detach from the ice base, with new plumes being initiated from ambient properties at the detachment depth. In that case, the non-local relationship between the melt rate at a given ice shelf point and the grounding line breaks together. I would argue that this is the case for a significant portion of the Antarctic ice shelf area, especially near the ice fronts. It is understood that this cannot necessarily be included in a simple parameterization like this, but it should be mentioned (could either be included at the end of section 2.3 or in the discussion).
- On page 25, line 15, I suggest rephrasing to "with ocean temperatures being constructed in a plausible way". Especially beneath FRIS, temperatures are certainly not plausible, they are known to be below -2 degC for most of the cavity (various Nicholls et al. papers), which is worth telling the reader on p. 21, line 5 and following.