Dear Dr Jouvet and co-authors,

Thank you for addressing the reviewers' comments, and for providing a list of the intended changes to the manuscript. I think your replies are adequate for the most part, although two points remain rather vague in my opinion.

*Your statement "In particular, Radionuclide contain data from the past seven decades while being still observable today." in reply to reviewer 1’s comment seems to miss the point. The reviewer is trying to gauge how strong the constraints from radionuclide data are, i.e. would your ‘best guess’ for the model parameters in the absence of radionuclide measurements be very different? The question “is it not possible to calibrate this parameter without these data and/or what would the model give if we assume, for example, no sliding above the equilibrium line” has not been fully addressed in my opinion. For example, could other methods, such as volume conservation, be used to constrain flow parameters of the upper glacier?

*Please also reconsider reviewer 1’s comment “It would be clearer to explain that you select 3 values for A and 4 values for Cp then calibrate the remaining parameters for the 3*4=12 sets”. I don’t think the reviewer is asking for a justification of your approach, rather a more detailed description.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Best regards,
Jan De Rydt - editor

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting a response and revised manuscript, which, I believe, addresses the key points raised by the reviewers and myself. I'm happy to forward your work in its current form for publication in The Cryosphere.

I would also like to join you in thanking the reviewers for their effort and valuable contributions.

Best regards,
Jan De Rydt - editor