Dear Dr. Jouni Räisänen,

Thank you for submitting your detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments. I am totally satisfied with your responses as well as the planned revisions. Now, I would like to ask you to submit a revised version of the manuscript, highlighting the changes made, together with the full responses to the review comments.

Sincerely,
Associate Editor, The Cryosphere
Masashi Niwano

Dear Dr. Jouni Räisänen,

Thank you for submitting your detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments as well as the revised manuscript. I have judged that the revisions are entirely appropriate, and the overall quality of the revised manuscript is excellent. Therefore, I am happy to accept the paper provisionally. In the following part, I list a few minor technical issues. Could you please prepare the final version of the manuscript considering these points? Line numbers refer to the manuscript pdf without tracked changes.

L. 89 ~ 90: “the description of snowmelt is important for the simulation of both the interannual variability and future trends of snow amount.”: The intention of “the description of snowmelt” is unclear. I suggest rephrasing the part to something like “it is imperative to calculate snowmelt accurately for the realistic simulations of both the interannual variability and future trends of snow amount.”.

L. 139: Suggest rephrasing “since precipitation measurements in Finland only record the total precipitation.” -> “since precipitation measurements in Finland only record the total amounts.”.

L. 393 ~ 394: Suggest rephrasing “~ anomalies in ERA5-Land would suggest.” -> “~ anomalies that ERA5-Land indicates.”. Using “suggest” sounds weak in this case. I think a stronger word like “indicate” is better here.

Sincerely,
Associate Editor, The Cryosphere
Dr. Masashi Niwano