Dear authors,

Your article was reviewed by two referees. Both of them found merits of your article to a large extent. Overall the reviewer #1 requests minor revisions, and the reviewer #2 requests more significant revisions. The both reviewers provided constructive suggestions which I would like the authors to address in the revised manuscript.

The main issues the reviewer #2 suggested to consider are (a) to clarify scope and scientific motivation of this paper, (b) to evaluate rigorousness of the model results and (c) to compare the model results with observations in a clearer manner. The reviewer #1 brought similar opinions on (c). Regarding the point (a), I think the authors would like to demonstrate the new scheme of modeling that can be widely applied to tide glaciers in general and also the case study at Store Glacier (rather than aiming to present either of them). If so, please present merits and limitations into these two directions more clearly. This article would attract a large range of audience, including glaciologists and oceanographers using numerical models and observational methods. Therefore, please carefully describe the equations and models, and clarify the limits of this approach by addressing comparisons with the field data adequately.

I look forward reading the revised article.

Kenny Matsuoka
TC/TCD Editor

Dear authors,

The revised manuscript was reviewed by a third refree whose opinions are very positive. Please consider points suggested by this reveiwer and submit a revised mauscript together with the marked manuscript and response letter.

Kenny Matsuoka
TC/TCD Editor

Dear authors,

The revised manuscript addresses reviewer’s concerns adequately. Therefore, I am happy to accept this manuscript with technical corrections. Below I suggest a few issues that should be considered by the authors before submitting the final manuscript.

Table 3: please include the dates when the “max” results were obtained in the caption. It is not explicitly shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 3 caption: the red dot appears in panel b and c, not panel a and b. Indeed, I suggest to include the red dot to all panels (bed topo, channel area, and sheet flux) for easier comparisons.

Fig. 4: show north and southern sides in the figure or in the caption (it is mentioned at P22L8-10ff).

P18L18: Table 3 shows that water pressure is higher in the winter (2.01 MPa) than in summer (1.13 and 1.3 MPa).

Fig. 5: both end members of channel area is shown with white so It is very hard to see which areas have lowest or highest channel areas. I think the key massage here is high variability rather than location-location variations, so I can accept this color bar, but if possible please change it to a different scheme so that end members are shown in a different color. Probably a colobar with single color (e.g. white to dark blue) works fine here.

Figs. 5 and 6: Please add the red dot showing S30 study site to panels a-c, which ease the comparison between panels.

Fig. 7/8 caption: clarify “median” as “median over the entire basin” or such. in the text, it is clear enough but many people read figures first.

Kenny Matsuoka
TC/TCD Editor