Thank you for your submission to TC/TCD. Your manuscript has received a generally positive review in the second round (see below). Nevertheless, some issues are left which must be addressed before publication. Most important is the point that the introduction and the method section still need some improvements in focus and clarity. Also the spelling and grammar should be generally improved.
Please carefully consider all comments and suggestion of reviewer.

Best regards
Moritz Langer

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer comments:

The paper has improved since its initial submission. I thank the authors for their very detailed response to my reviews. I have some additional comments that are primarily focused on the introduction and methods. There are also a number of spelling and grammatical errors throughout that should be addressed. I have pointed out a number of them but not all.

Abstract
The abstract is much improved, it is clear and concise.
P1L4 … as a support tool…
P1L11 …model performance was good…

Introduction
P1L19 suggest: The occurrence of permafrost degradation is dependent on the ground properties, snow cover interactions and ground ice content () and is therefore a heterogeneous phenomenon.
P1L20 suggest: loss in strength
P2L3 Therefore, there is a growing…
P2L4 … to allow for a targeted risk…
P2L11 "…destabilization consists on the onset"? Suggest you reword this sentence
P2L13 creep-driven sections and sliding sections
P2L13 Change the word exceptionally, doesn’t make sense here
L17 Reword sentence, doesn’t work as is
L20 … leading to destabilization…
L21 Sentence does not flow, reword to strengthen the point
L25 – 29 I do not understand what you are trying to present in these sentences.

Last paragraph of the introduction should be cleaned up to make the point clearer. Also the introduction also does not include any details on the type of model being used. This should be included and should be mentioned in the abstract as well.

Methods
P3L25 XX century?
L27 ..was compiled…
L32 20th century has something off with the superscript
P4L2 …similar to …
L4 Provide context for the Laurichard Rock Glacier, where is it? Linked to increasing temperature? Be direct, is this the phenomenon you are talking about?
L4 Remove sentence…at the same time….
L3-11 I don’t see how the specifics of these examples are pertinent to your study. I would suggest stating that there have been a number of important changes associated with rock glaciers i.e. destabilization due to increasing temperatures, increases in the development of crevasses, and that these changes can/have led to risks in a number of regions. Summarize these examples more effectively.
L33 You state you used all three available orthoimages to ensure that you were mapping surface disturbances and not just compression features. Due to the large temporal gaps how does mapping from the three mosaics help? Are you using the temporal images to identify if new crevasses have formed and hence a surface disturbance? Please clarify this section.
P5L7 recurrence of features on destabilized rock glaciers…
L8-29 This section presents too many examples without clearly laying out why they are presented. How does past analysis of rock glaciers help you assign destabilization ratings? How did you use the three temporal periods and changes you might have mapped when assigning ratings? This is the type of information that should be highlighted. One or two past examples that you may have used to inform how you interpreted changes is fine but this sections needs to be much more concisely written
L30 on P4, L17 you say you split the glaciers into three categories cracks, crevasses, scarps, here you say you are splitting them into two categories…
P6L18 What predictor variable represents climatic characteristics?
P8L15 evidence

Results
P9L25 suggest .. m a.s.l, and slope angles ranging….
L28 PISR
L28 Based on the figure there doesn’t appear to be an increase in destabilization predisposition around 2000 kWh/m2. Please explain.
L30 How did you explore the relationship between PTP and destabilization?
P10L1 The susceptibility map models rock glacier stability which you are using as a proxy to identify permafrost areas susceptible to destabilization correct?
L5 This statement should be followed by some reasoning as to why “The susceptibility map predicted high destabilization susceptibility in areas belonging to stable rock glaciers”


Discussion
P12L8 How was PTP found to be a significant predictor of potential destabilization? It wasn’t included in the model. What statistics were done to measure significance?

Where the map didn’t perform well should be discussed. In the results you say “The susceptibility map predicted high destabilization susceptibility in areas belonging to stable rock glaciers” Why?

Figures
Figure 1
Caption - Identification of the study area.
In the legend what does “active production areas are found” mean? It would be useful to include another inset in the bottom left corner with a zoomed in image of one of the mountain ranges. It is difficult to see how the PFI scales with elevation on the map as it is.

Figure 2
What years are the orthoimages that are presented? It would be good if you actually included what you would have mapped on each orthoimage as it is quite difficult to see the features.

Figure 7
y-axis is very difficult to see. I would make it clear that you are presenting all variables however PTP wasn’t included in the final model.

Figure 8
Is there a full susceptibility map for the entire study area? This may be of interest to many and should be included as a supplementary figure. Even better would be to include it in the paper and then have figure 8 as an inset.

Tables
Table 4 Destabilization typo in column 1
Table 5 Not called DEFROST susceptibility anymore right? Also based on the low surface area in the 3a class does it make sense to combine 3a and 3b into one class? Also please reorder 1, 2, 3a, 3b

Dear authors,
thank you for submitting a revised version of your manuscript. I think that all points raised within the review process are well addressed and that your study is now ready for publication. It would be really nice if you would acknowledge the two anonymous reviewers that have strongly contributed to improve this study.
Thank you and best regards
Moritz Langer