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 a more in-depth assessment of the sensitivity of your results to the choice of model parameter values and boundary conditions (alpha, Qsg/W, channel width, TS boundary conditions), and ii) a more nuanced formulation of your conclusions in terms of observations vs model output. The comments of the reviewers and their suggestions for improvement have been carefully and comprehensively addressed, and I therefore invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript at your earliest convenience.

Best regards,
Jan De Rydt, editor

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting a revised manuscript. I have considered your changes and believe the reviewers' comments and suggestions have been adequately addressed. Following my own reading of the revised text, I have listed a few technical points for your to consider (see below) before you submit the final version. Let me thank you again for choosing TC to publish your work, and for your prompt handling of the review process.

Best regards,
Jan De Rydt - editor

---------------------

* Please consider including a statement about data availability at the end in order to comply with TC data policy (see https://www.the-cryosphere.net/about/data_policy.html for further details). In particular, note that "If the data are not publicly accessible, a detailed explanation of why this is the case is required (e.g. applicable laws, university and research institution policies, funder terms, privacy, intellectual property and licensing agreements, and the ethical context of the research);"

* There are still some lingering inconsistencies between the past and present tense, as reviewer 1 pointed out. For example, L131,134 use past tense to describe model experiments, whereas L100-120 use present tense. The same holds for L158-159. I leave it up to the authors to check for other instances.

* L153 I assume that 'as for the height scaling' refers to Eq.2?

* L157-159: here and in other places there seem to be missing exponents in the units. Can this be a result of converting from docx to pdf? The typsetter might miss this detail so it is worth double-checking that the conversion happens correctly.

* L179-180 a space is needed between the value and unit.

* L215 'Numerical model...' Consider replacing with 'A numerical simulation of...'?