Dear Akiko,

Thank you for your revisions. The comments were overall well addressed, but there are few issues left raised by the reviewer and some new issues arrose. In addition to the reviewers comments, I have few further ones which I ask you to consider.

The reviewer raised specifically two issues: The better description between rock glaciers and debris-covered glaciers. This is a valid point I am aware that this is quite difficult but I agree that some more details are needed. You may here also refer to Moelg et al. (2018).

The second issue is the uncertainty. I also believe that 15% is quite high. I agree to be conservative, but I cannot follow how you come up with the 15% and 30%. I am also missing results of the delineation tests in the main manuscript.

I also want to mention that I do not agree with all of the reviewers comments (e.g. fully remove section 3.1 or L. 21-29 on page 4) and you also do not need to agree with all comments by the reviewer, but in case not please provide a good reason.

Please find my comments below:

P2L9: I think you can leave “millions” (see reviewers comments) as the glaciers are important but not really for all billion people living downstream.

P2L13: Considering the uncertainty it is not clear whether Karakoram glaciers are really gaining mass. I suggest to adjust to: “…are in balance or show a slight mass gain” or similar.

L18: Update the Huss 2012 citation with the recent paper by Farinotti et al. 2019

L22: Thanks for citing my work here. However, I did not consider the area uncertainty properly in my 2011 paper. Maybe you can refer to the 2017, TC paper or others which take the area uncertainty explicitly into account.

P3L2f: I do not understand what you mean. Can you please be more precise or add a figure in the supplement?

P5L22ff (Results section): I like the structure better how it has been before. The second sentence now is already a comparison to GGI15 and needs to be presented there.

P7L7ff.: I do not fully agree with this statement. First of all Moelg et al. used also high resolution images in addition to the coherence images (see Fig. 3) and whether or whether the movement of rock glaciers are detected depends on their activity/flow velocity and the time difference between the SAR image acquisition.

L10f: What does complicated mean? Did Moelg et al. 2018 used similar images than you? If not then they must have had the similar problem.

P7L25: What does clearer mean? More suitable images with better snow and cloud conditions?

One comment regarding the correct writing of “Nyen Chen Tanglha”. You find also “Nyenchen Tanglha” or “Nyainqentanglha”, You may write the alternative transcription in brackets the first time used.

The layout of the supplement needs to be improved. Try to avoid figures without captions on one page and have consistent space between the figures and the captions.
E.g. Fig S1: There is a lot of uncaused space, maybe one example can be omitted and the caption shortened when a legend is included (e.g. for “with glacier outlines for the GGI15 and GGI18 inventories indicated by red and yellow lines, respectively”
Fig. S3: The single figures can be smaller so that 2 figures can be shown beside each other.
Fig. S5: It is a bit large and should be cantered


Please address all comments carefully and provide a point to point reply. I will then not send the manuscript out for further review but make the decision by myself.
.
Please do not hesitate to ask in case you have any question.

Best regards,

Tobias Bolch, Editor TC

Dear Akiko,

Thank you for the revision. I mostly agree. However, the treatment of rock glaciers is not clear and the text has some contradictions. It might be better to clearly write about the difficulties.
See also some annotations to the text.
Let me know in case you have any questions.

Best regards,

Tobias

Dear Akiko,

The sentence you added provides some explanation but it is still not clear. You cannot argue that "Those detailed topography cannot be detected by Landsat imagery because of low resolutions" and then write in the next sentence "Then, debris-covered areas were determined from high-resolution Google Earth imagery. Specifically, those portions of the glacier surface exhibiting rock glacier-like topography (e.g., flow lobes), were identified visually and omitted."
Please clarify; maybe write "Therefore ..." and remove the info in brackets as it is now written beforehand.

Also improve "surrounded BY ice cliffs"
and add a reference for the sentence "as gradual transitions can exist under permafrost conditions" Maybe one of W. Haeberli or Moelg et al..

The added sentence "the method might lead to under- or over-estimate debris-covered glacier area." is not clear. It is too unspecific. Any estimate of the "under and over estimation"? Does this refere to the rock glacier problem?

Best regards,

Tobias

Dear Akiko,

The manuscript is now fine as is. Please correct in the added sentence "because of low relatively low resolution." (no plural and Landsat is not really low resolution).
I still feel that the English needs some improvements. Copernicus will perform a proodread free of charge after your resubmission.

Thank you for your valuable contrubution to TC,

Tobias Bolch