Dear Colin J. Gleason and co-authors,

Thank you for submitting the replies to the referees' reports. You have addressed their concerns thoroughly and extensively, and I commend you for submitting such a detailed and thoughtful response.
I would like to invite you to submit your revised manuscript. In addition to the changes you have already outlined, I make two suggestions below. I leave it to your discretion whether you find them useful, and whether or not you wish to implement them in the revised manuscript.

1. RCM run-off
The manuscript by Fettweis et al. (2020) (https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/14/3935/2020/) comparing different RCM outputs from Greenland is now published (so the reference can be updated). It might be worth mentioning in the discussion about modelled SMB vs your observations, that in general RCM results do differ substantially. For example, I notice that (according to Fettweis 2020) HIRHAM and MAR overpredict runoff on the Greenland west coast compared to the ensemble mean. Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that the observed discharge is lower than the modelled.

2. Data availability
Mankoff et al. (2020) (https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2811/2020/) used modelled runoff to estimate freshwater discharge from the Greenland Ice Sheet. I don't want to push this citation, but I wonder if it is worth mentioning (referencing) some of in-situ measurements that are used in that study? Especially, why they are not suitable for your study. This might entice data collectors to consider whether observations could be carried out differently and in such a way that they are more useful for hydrological modelling. Incidentally, Mankoff et al. found that models both over- and underpredict runoff, depending on region.

Best,
Nanna
TC Co-editor-in-chief

Dear Colin J. Gleason and co-authors,
Thank you for submitting a revised version of your manuscript. I join referee #1 in thanking you for doing a very thorough job of including suggested changes and comments. I have a few very minor comments outlined below, that I ask you to correct in the final version. Once they have been implemented, I am happy to recommend your manuscript for publication in The Cryosphere.
Your study presents an important step forward in our understanding of the routing of surface water on the Greenland ice sheet, and I am convinced that your findings will prove useful and valuable for future studies (and observational campaigns).
Best,
Nanna, TC editor

Technical corrections:
p.3, line 91: typo "sclae"
p. 6, line 190: "...using a fine network density and excluding hillslope processes would be labelled ‘non-hillslope coarse.’" Do you mean fine?
p. 8, line 222: "... a complete river networks...". Should "networks" be "network"?
p. 8, line 234: "... they elevations need to be raised," Typo: they -> their
p. 22, line 507: "accurate route water". Typo: accurate -> accurately
p. 22, line 512: Typo: "Mass gaps could perhaps result from to subsurface retention...". Delete "to"
p. 23, line 539: Missing a word: "yet the collection in situ discharge in particular"

Fig. 2: There is a problem with the caption overlapping the figures. Something to check in the typeset version.