Dear Authors,
this manuscript received 2 in depth and detailed reviews that were overall positive and highlighted the value and relevance of the suggested new approach and the quality of the analysis and manuscript as a whole. Besides some minor points both referees identified a few more general issues which mainly concerned
-more details and information on the methods and analysis
-better reference to existing literature
-and some further figures illustrating the results/analysis.

In their response and the edited manuscript the authors carefully outlined how they addressed all these critical points satisfactorily and the manuscript seems thereby close to acceptance.
As an editor I found myself a few more very minor/editing points (see list below) the authors should address before submitting the final revised version of the manuscript.
So please integrate these points into the final manuscript before submitting the final revised version.
The editor Andreas Vieli, 13 Oct 2019

List of very minor editing points from editor (page /line numbers referring to the trackchange document of the response)

p. 4 Fig. 1: I can not see the exact location of the Camera/Lidar, add a symbol or an arrow that one can clearly see.
p. 4 last line: I would delete the 'for'
p.5 line 26: add an 'a': '…array and a second…'
p. 6 line 6: add a 'the': 'Owing to the short…'
p. 6 line 7: '…advance over such time differences…'
p. 6 line 11: I think the 'consistent' can be deleted as 'systematic' somewhat already says that it occurs through the dataset.

In introduction and in discussion 7.1 (p. 17 lines 13-18) and in 7.2 (extensions) the recent TC-Discussion paper by Walter et al. by using terrestrial radar-interferometry for detecting calving volume/frequency) maybe relevant.
Walter et al. Calving event size measurements and statistics of Eqip Sermia, Greenland, from terrestrial radar interferometry (TCD ) https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2019-102
p. 16 line 26: 'tidewater' as one word
p. 16 line 28: potentially the recent modelling-study by mercenier et al (2019) in JAMES maybe be relevant in context of melt-undercutting enhancing calving.
Mercenier, R., Lüthi, M. P., & Vieli, A. (2019). A transient coupled ice flow-damage model to simulate iceberg calving from tidewater outlet glaciers. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001567

p. 20 caption line 2: '…(c) area (purple) of the …'
p. 23 fig D1: I assume the units in the x and y axis in fig D1 (a) and (b) are (km), if so please add in figure or in caption or if not better explain what the numbers are.
p. 23 line 8-10: this sentence is very hard to follow. Maybe rephrase/break up to:
'…for time segments of 10s duration at the start….time window. Depending on the station used, these values are then multiplied by a factor of between….'.
p. 24 caption, second sentence: 'The solid curve represents the fitted model'.
p. 24 caption second line: 'Dashed lines…' (plural)
p. 24 last sentence: 'Ad is the logarithmic ….and A the logarithm…'

Dear Andreas Köhler and co-authors,
The very minor remaining editing issues and correction (after the two in depth reviews and revisions) have been addressed satisfactorily and therefore I am pleased to announce the acceptance manuscript.
I also would like to thank the authors for their excellent handling of the revision process.
Best regards
The editor, Andreas Vieli, 27 Oct 2019