Dear authors,

According to your posted responses to referees, I understand that you have addressed their criticisms in detail and revised your manuscript accordingly. Please go ahead a submit your revised manuscript to the online portal (Note: the revised manuscript is not supposed to be submitted to the interactive discussion page; I apologise if this was not clearly indicated in the TC guidelines). Once received, your revised manuscript will be sent for another round of reviews.

Best regards,
Valentina

Dear authors,

I have received the feedback from one of the reviewers who previously requested major revisions for the first draft. Unfortunately, the referee's assessment of the revised draft is that the most critical points have not been addressed adequately or at all.

Considering a substantial delay in the processing of your manuscript so far, I am reluctant to send it for another round of reviews with new referees, which would likely add months to the review process. Also, I am reluctant to reject the draft as the other referee was generally positive about it. Instead, I would like you to submit a rebuttal letter addressing the following criticisms (copied here from the referee's comments):

1. The manuscript provides very little in the way of new science. No comparison to actual or modelled mass balance was conducted. A proxy for mass balance was compared to another proxy for mass balance - this can be worked out from first principles.

2. Most of the studies original shortcomings were not addressed in the revision. No climate data was added to support the idea that the glacier basins are indeed climatically different. No systematic analysis of MODIS error between Aqua and Terra was conducted.

Please consider ways to revise your manuscript so that the issues above are at least discussed in detail in the manuscript, if it is not possible to incorporate them in your analysis. For example, in (1) what was the reason for not implementing a simple mass balance model (using a degree-day model for melting, or a simple energy balance model), with reanalysis data as forcing, to get an estimate of glacier mass balance? What concrete evidence do you present for the links between the albedo changes and glacier mass balance (instead of changes in summer snow line or similar proxies)? In (2), what has prevented you from performing a systematic error analysis? Could more sensitivity tests (e.g. assumptions of random errors, or using Monte Carlo methods) be conducted to get a better estimate of uncertainties? If not, why not? Could you use any reanalysis data (e.g. ERA5 - available on 30 km resolution from 1979 to present day) to support the idea that glacier basins are climatically different? If not, why not?

Once I receive your rebuttal letter and revised manuscript I will most likely review it myself.

Best regards,
Valentina

Dear Authors,

I have read in detail your responses from the last two review cycles. Admittedly, in the second review cycle, I relied more on the brief comments from the reviewer than on your detailed rebuttal letter, assuming that the reviewer has read your responses. Rereading again, I do find the reviewer's criticism mainly unjustified and it is likely the reviewer hasn't read your responses nor the revised manuscript in detail. In the lack of any constructive criticism in this second round, I appreciate your efforts to 'defend' your initially revised study and for choosing not to engage in further revisions. Also, thank you for responding to my comments.

Again, my apologies for not seeing this problem earlier. As an editor, I do heavily rely on reviewers' judgements, especially for the studies whose research goes beyond my own area of expertise. In my defence, speaking from my experience as an editor, the length of a rebuttal letter does not necessary correlate with an implementation of meaningful revisions. This is why I tend to send revised manuscripts for another round of review if the referees ask for major revisions in the first round.

Without any further delay, I am accepting this manuscript for publication.

Best regards,
Valentina