Dear Harry Zekollari and co-athors,
This manuscript received two very positive reviews that highlighted the novelty and relevance of the proposed modelling approach of future glacier evolution in the alps including glacier dynamic, the potential for application and the high quality of the undertaken research (one of the referees phrased it as: 'it will become the new reference study for future glacier change in the European Alps and as such, it is likely to receive a larger interest from the general public and the media.')
Both referees had, besides minor editing issues, also some more substantial comments and suggestions that were mainly around the methodological approach (climate model forcing) and validation and uncertainties of the modelling.
The authors undertook substantial revisions and addressed the points raised by the referees very carefully and specifically and justified their revisions. The manuscript has been sent to one of the first two referees for a re-review which was in general very happy with the revised manuscript (see comments below). The one point on the implications of using the 1990s climate for the initial steady state calculation, the referee still would like to get a bit more explanation, but within the scope of this revised manuscript I considered the authors did a sufficient job to address this issue. Perhaps the authors can further take up this interesting thread for further research and discuss it directly with the referee in more detail.
This manuscript is now very close to publication and there are only a couple of minor editing/language issue I spotted that need addressing together with the minor comment in the re-review (see list below).
Please also acknowledge the referees (1 anonymous and Marzeion) in the acknowledgments.
I congratulate the authors for their very interesting paper and also would like to thank them for their excellent handling of the revision process.

Best regards
The editor, Andreas Vieli, 26 March 2019

----------------
Re-review comments (Marzeion)
I would like to thank the authors for their comprehensive revision of the manuscript. All my concerns and question were addressed well. I see just two remaining minor issues that I would like to be addressed before I would recommend the manuscript to be accepted for publication:
- In the new figure S5, the GCM lines seem to be absolutely identical within each row; are the authors sure they show different GCMs?
- I still do not fully understand the implications of obtaining the steady state in 1990 using the 1961 to 1990 climatology. Because of the non-linear effect of variability on mass balance (zero-mean variability will create non-zero mean mass balance anomalies), the mass balance obtained from using the mean climate of 1961 to 1990 should be different from the mean of the mass balance during the period 1961 to 1990. Maybe this is beside the point, but I would appreciate if the authors can explain.



--------------
Minor technical/editing issue (by editor)
(page numbers and line numbers refer to newest revised document)

-I personally would not use 'yr' as a symbol for 'years' prefer to use 'a' throughout the paper (actually appears mostly as 'a^-1')
-for 'versus' you should consistently use the same abbreviation 8 (vs. or v., both not a mixture of both as for example at top of p. 17). Adjust accordingly.

p. 2 line 16: correct to 'In another study…' (not 'other')

p. 5 line 5: delete the second 'decline' at end of line

p. 6 line 10: '…criteria OF horizontal distance..'

p. 6 line 10: you can not multiply a 'criteria' but rather the quantity/threshold used in the criteria. Maybe replace 'criteria' by 'value' or 'measures'.

p. 6 line 34: correct to '…the glacier's centre point..'

p. 8 line 19: style, 'created' sounds awkward, maybe better say '…a steady state is OBTAINED…'

p. 9 line 1: add a 'the' in front of inventory

p. 9 line 7/8: again add a 'the' in front of inventory

p. 9 line 25: again add a 'the' in front of inventory and delete one full stop after 'date'

p. 10 line 14: delete 'in general', is not needed.

p. 10 line 34: style, I would delete the 'ranging' as you it sounds repetitive (the word 'range' is already used before in in this sentence) and is not needed. And add a comma after 200 m /yr on next page.

p. 11 line 2: 'are maybe likely' sounds awkward as you repeat the 'uncertainty twice, just say '…are likely linked…'

.p. 11 line 28: replace 'ca.' with 'approx.' as 'ca.' is in english usually used for approximate HISTORIC dates

p. 12 line 23: '…over THE period 1973-…'

p. 13 line 1-2: style, I would move the 'by the end' to the end of the sentence (after 'lost').

p. 13 line 13: 'appears' seems to me the wrong word hear, 'This is also evident from…' or 'This emerges from…'

p. 13 line 14: 'most limited' is a bit awkward, why not say 'lowest'

p. 13 line 24: '…depending on the FOLLOWING SIMULATION'??? how do you mean? '…depending on the projection scenario.'?

p. 13 line line 32: if you mention 'significance' here you have to give the p-value as well , the r^2 value does not say anything about significance.

p. 14 line 13: style, 'relatively similar' sounds awkward, as it repeats the 'uncertainty' twice unless you mean relatively in the sense of 'qualitative' or 'in relative terms' (which from the context is probably not what you mean). I would just delete 'relatively'.

p. 15 line 12: style, again 'relatively similar' sounds awkward, as it repeats the 'uncertainty' twice unless you mean relatively in the sense of 'qualitative' or 'in relative terms' (which from the context is probably not what you mean). I would just delete 'relatively'.

p. 14 line 21: add a space between 'the' and the 'delta h'.
same linewhat do you refer to with 'these' in 'these will be ..' I can not quite follow.

p. 14 line 24-27: this sentence has 6 sub-sentences and is very hard to follow. Maybe break up into two sentences.

p. 15 line 23: style, '…depends more strongly…' (you talk a bout the strength of a relation here.

p. 15 lines 27-28: style, I think after the 'however' this should be a 'neither … nor' sentence rather that 'not ..but not…': '…does neither allow for… nor suggest…'

p. 17 line 8-9: I struggle with this sentence: I think you mean 'lowest and highest EXISTING projected volume losses in the literature', but just adding citations in brackets is not that clear.
Maybe say: '…the lowest () and highest () projected volume losses existing in the literature.

p. 17 line 10-11: there are some issues in this sentence, please rewrite/correct it: '…period as study..' something missing?
'a direct comparison to the results of … is difficult.???

p. 17 line 22: 'More details…' on what? On the results for the three glaciers…?

p. 18 line 9: '…in different 2100 volumes' (delete the 'a')

p. 18 line 14: '…result IN a larger area…'

p. 18 line 15: However, IN the longer term…'

p. 18 line 18: in the case OF a rectangular cross section (), the differences…'

p. 18 line 21: '…would change by …'

p. 20 line 25: style, maybe replace 'attempts' by 'iterations'

p. 20 line 29: style: maybe replace 'performed again' by 'repeated'