Dear authors,

Your manuscript was re-reviwed by Dr. Amundson. His assessment is overall positive, but he suggested four specific points to improve the manuscript. I would like to see your full response, especially for point #1. You can move the assumption of cylinder shape between Equations 1 and 2. As the reviewer pointed out, larger melt rates at greater depths do not support this assumption. Please mention this point more clearly in the final text. I don’t have a strong guidance about reviewer’s suggestion to plot (dv/dt)/v, but please give the full consideration to this point. A possible revision is to develop a new subsection under “results and discussion” to discuss the cylinder assumption and relevant issues.

Regarding supplemental figure associated with Fig. 4, I support author’s decision not to include it in the paper.

You find several additional comments below.

Figure 2 caption: add a statement about m, i.e. submarine melt rates derived from each linear polynominal is given in the box.

Figure 5: Do you want to say in the caption “Highly variable melt rates at greater depths observed in March and April 2011 are highlighted with the boxes.”? “Deep melt rates” is confusing and there is no circle. Also, consider showing the rate variations using arrows to clarify the temporal change, instead of highlighting boxes. Similar to reviewer #2, I also feel that it is hard to read Figure 5, even in the revised version. Make this figure tall enough in the final manuscript (one column width is enough).

Figure 3: include the value of the observed melt rate in the caption.

Table 1: change the order of rows so that these datasets are listed in the order same as Figure legends (i.e. Kong Oscar first, Koge Bugt last).

Table 1: add a summary sentence at the beginning, e.g. Observation overview and derived meltwater flux.

I plan to review the next revision by myself without another round of reviews. However, please submit point-to-point responses and marked manuscript together with the final manuscript.

Thanks for your careful revision to the previous round.

Kenny Matsuoka
TC/TCD Editor

Dear authors,

Thanks for your careful revisions. The new manuscript addressed all points adequately, and I am happy to accept this manuscript as is.

Kenny Matsuoka
TC/TCD Editor