Dear authors,

You have thoroughly addressed the reviewers’ comments, and the manuscript is clearly of relevance for TC. Please submit a revised manuscript for further revision.

Best regards,
Alex

Dear Authors,

I find only minor improvements necessary in the manuscript before publication. However, many small typographical errors were present. I have found some of them, but I would recommend another careful reading. I look forward to your submission of a revised version.

Best regards,
Alex

L3: Delete “both”

L14: Why should the value of this study be limited to PISM users? I agree that the parameter choices most directly inform PISM users, but the physics and boundary conditions tested are relevant to all paleo ice sheet modelers. Consider rephrasing.

L33: Typo “intermediat”

L142: This equation is difficult to parse in its current form, consider revising if possible (e.g., you could define `h_f` separately, after the equation, or before; make two separate and complete equations rather than an additional term depending on the if-statement).

L169: Typo “This The reference”

L197: empiric => empirical

L203: tuning parameter => tuning parameters

L204: Value 1 => A value of 1.0
[Also maintain 1 decimal point on lines below]

L237: damped effectively => effectively damped

Section 2.3: Unless I am mistaken, PISM uses a peculiar choice of vertical grid (fixed in space, rather than being scaled to ice thickness, ie, sigma-coordinates). Perhaps it is worth mentioning, and the expected impact of that choice here, as I am afraid it may be exacerbating the issue.

L304: “We have shown…” sounds strange here, given that it is not shown until later in Section 4.1. Consider revising.

L350: considers => consider

L360: Typo “considers considers”

L405-414 and Fig. 10: PDD versus climate. This description is a bit confusing since PDD is associated with a SMB method, while climate refers to temperature and precipitation. I realized that the standard deviation parameters of PDD are used to modify the temperature input, but the terminology is overlapping here. Please revise. Also, what do you mean by “omit the PDD scheme” on L411 specifically? No melt model is used at all, or rather standard deviation is set to zero? Please improve precision in the description here to be sure to be able to understand what was done.

L422: Similar as for the => Analogous to the

L455: Typo “hightes”

L459: Largest differences => The largest differences

L466: in the understanding of => to understanding

L468: Perhaps here it would be worthwhile to add a sentence stating what properties of basal friction you will study here (pseudo-plastic exponent, till properties, till properties under modern ice shelves).

L470: the Eq. (4) => Eq. (4)

L470: Value => A value of

L492: spatially equal distribution => spatially constant value

L527: weakly => poorly

L529: Friction coefficient => The friction coefficient

L533: till friction angle => the till friction angle

L581: below the sea-level => below sea level

L588: sea-surface heights reconstructions => sea-surface-height reconstructions

L596: Remove negative sign in front of 130 m.

L598: Remove negative sign in front of 18 kyr BP.

L598: sea-level => sea level

L600: present-day => present day

L604: 4 ky => 4 kyr

L610-611: Fragment, missing “is”?

L614: Revise: “form of Arrhenius form”

Fig 19 caption, ~L650: white noise leads higher => white noise leads to higher

L715: Typo: “Also, There”

L724: As average => On average

L732: is depending => depends

L751: no the lapse rate => no lapse rate

Fig. 23 caption, ~L755: reveals => is seen

L768: at modern level => at modern levels

L770: Ocean temperatures => Ocean temperature

L774: Perhaps “Without precipitation forcing” is better?

Fig 24 caption, ~L780: combination => combinations

L794: need to be hit => must be crossed

L803: at Last Interglacial => at the Last Interglacial

L852: grounding line sensitivity => grounding-line sensitivity

L852: in the Appendix A => in Appendix A

L860: 4 parameters for 3 sections, consider rephrasing.

Dear authors,

You have thoroughly improved the manuscript and it is essentially ready for publication and a very nice contribution to TC. I believe, however, that the title also needs to be modified. I would change “Glacial cycles simulation”, which is not grammatically correct, to “Glacial cycle simulations”. My apologies for not noticing earlier.

Best regards,
Alex