Dear Ellyn Enderlin and Timothy Bartholomaus,

Your TCD manuscript "Poor performance of a common crevasse model at marine-terminating glacier" received two constructive reviews where both reviewers identified methodological issues and questions, which you already partly clarified in your author comments.

Now I would like to ask you to upload a revised version of the manuscript together with an author's response where you clearly address the comments of the reviewers. Based on this response and your revised version, I plan to reconsult the reviewers before taking a decision.

Best regards,
Stef Lhermitte, 21 Oct 2019

Dear Ellyn and Timothy,

We have received feedback from both reviewers on your revised version of "Local stress models do not predict observed crevasse patterns at Greenland’s marine terminating glaciers".

Referee 1 (see report attached) remains extremely critical about your data set as usable validation tool and your resulting conclusions from the comparison with the models. Given the potential importance of these comments and their implications, I would suggest you to revise your manuscript to address the comments raised. In this context, I think it is definitely important to stress the limitations of your crevasse depth estimations more clearly throughout the manuscript. Additionally, I would recommend to rephrase parts of the comparison between models and "observations", where also limitations of the observations should be stressed more clearly and what it means in terms of interpretation.

Looking forward to receiving an updated version of your manuscript.

Best regards,
Stef

Dear Ellyn and Timothy,

We have received the reviewer report after your second revision for tc-2019-128 "Sharp contrasts in observed and modeled crevasse patterns at Greenland’s marine terminating glaciers". The reviewer acknowledges the improvements and at the same time makes some clear suggestions on potential improvement of the manuscript.

Based on this review, I am taking the decision to "Publish subject to revisions", but with the constraint that I think it is crucial to take the suggestions of the reviewer into account.

Best regards,
Stef

Dear Ellyn Enderlin and Timothy Bartholomaus,

First I would like to apologise the delay this final decision has taken due to personal circumstances.

I have re-consulted reviewer 1, which still identified some points of critique, and reviewer 2 and based on this consultation I have taken the decision to accept your paper as is. Congratulations!

We thank you again for submitting to The Cryosphere.

Best regards,
Stef Lhermitte