Dear authors,

thank you for the amendments performed in response to the three referees that reviewed the manuscript.

In general, I think that the reviewers’ concerns were adequately addressed and I don’t feel that a further round of review is necessary. I have, however, four additional requests that I would ask you to address prior to publication. I think that all of them should be reasonably easy to handle.

1) My major concern relates to the way that glacier evolution is taken into account. It might just be a wording issue, but lines 20-26 of page 8 seem to say that you implicitly assume that all glaciers will be in steady state in the future. Since this is highly unlikely for the scenario you consider (RCP8.5), a clarification is required for why this assumption is thought to be reasonable. More importantly, I’m not sure to understand the messages passed with lines 32-38 on page 13 (see also specific comment in the annotated manuscript). Here, I would expect a more nuanced discussion of the effect that the “AAR-workaround” has on the results presented in your study. I also note that reviewer K. Förster already had this request.

2) Some of the answers you provided are exemplary, in the sense that they entail a whole set of additional analyses tailored to the reviewers’ comments. This is particularly true for the comment “P12L32” by K. Förster or “P10L3” by J. Curran, for example. I was wondering whether you considered to add such additional analyses into a supplementary?
I’m not saying that this is strictly necessary (since your replies are accessible online), but I would imagine that there is added value in making this additional work more visible to future readers. The “supplementary”-option seems to me a pragmatic way for doing so -- rather than trying to incorporate the analysis in the main text, which would require reshuffling, and would lengthen the text.

3) For other replies, I think it would be beneficial to include at least a shortened version of the argumentation in the text. This is the case for comment “P12L36” by K. Förster, for example. Here, your argumentations make sense to me, but some future readers might well have the same question if no hint is provided in the text. I encourage you to consider whether including the one or the other hint might strengthen your article.
I encourage you to perform the same consideration for (i) comments “P22L9”, “P23L10” by K. Förster, (ii) specific comments “10” (this can be as easy as adding “uncertainties are not shown to facilitate readability” in the caption) and, potentially, “9” by the anonymous reviewer, and (iii) the comments to “Appendix B” by J. Curran.

4) The enclosed, annotated manuscript includes some minor suggestions and hints that you may find of use (you should be able to see 46 edits in total). Please consider them and provide a reply where necessary.

Best regards
Daniel Farinotti

Dear authors,

thank you very much for taking into account the various comments provided during the last round of revision.
As far as I am concerned, all comments have been taken into account in a satisfactory manner. I therefore don’t see any further obstacle to publication.

Please let me personally thanks for the constructive and professional way you have handled the various comments, and accept my congratulations for the successful completion of the work.

Best regards.
Daniel Farinotti