Dear authors,

This manuscript received two positive reviews, highlighting the excellent scientific significance of your results. Both reviewers suggested minor revisions, with the more substantial points being (i) the need for additional background information and perspective wrt the existing literature, (ii) a more in-depth description of the ice sheet model, in particular the ice shelf melt parameterization, and (iii) a more nuanced discussion of the results in terms of the model biases. The comments of the reviewers and their suggestions for improvement have been carefully and comprehensively addressed, and I only spotted very few minor technical details in the annotated manuscript that you may wish to correct. They are listed below.

Please consider these minor points when submitting your revised paper.

Best regards,
Jan De Rydt, editor


Minor points:

p2 l19: Larsen B ice shelf → Larsen B Ice Shelf
p3 l9: They → These
p5 l6: produce → produced
p5 l24: to → onto
p6 l20: In line with reviewers’ comments, can you say something about the magnitude of the melt rates? Has K been tuned for your specific model setup?
p7 l7: Penn state ice sheet model → PSU-ISM
p8 l24: suggests
p9 l23: how, when
p13 l25: Antarctic Ice Sheet → AIS
p16 l6-16: consider using past tense?

Dear Dr Tigchelaar et al.,

Thank you for submitting a revised manuscript and for addressing all comments and suggestions. Thank you again for considering The Cryosphere for your work.

Jan De Rydt (editor)