Dear authors
Many thanks for your thorough replies to the reviewers' comments. I am confident that you can prepare a revised manuscript that will satisfactorily address the issues raised by the reviewers.
I look forward to your revised paper.
Best regards,
Juerg Schweizer.

Dear authors
I am very pleased with your revisions. Please consider the few minor comments by reviewer #2.
In addition, I have noted a few minor points myself:

P 2, L 48: I suggest replacing exposition by aspect.
P 2, L 50-51: … by snow properties such as microstructure and liquid water content ….
P 4, L 37: I suggest replacing ridge by divide.
P 9, L 28-29: I suggest removing the constant c and instead provide snow depth in meters. This would also make Eqs 7 and 18 consistent.
P 10, L 59: suggest rewording “poissonian counting statistics”
P 17, L 67: From Figure 4, it seems to me that density is below 500 kg m-3 at the maximum of SWE in the winter 2016-2017.
P 19, L 6: Positive air temperature do not necessarily lead to melt, nor to ablation.
P 23, L 29: I do not follow here, why should liquid precipitation only add to SWE when the snowpack is isothermal?
P 25, L 80: I doubt that the snow physics change. Maybe replace by snow properties.

Davos, 19 November 2019
Jürg Schweizer