Dear authors,

My apologies for the slow turn-around of your manuscript. You received two positive reviewer reports, asking for minor corrections to the submitted work. Your point-by-point replies fully address the comments and suggestions by both reviewers, including 1) a new figure (Fig 2) and additional text to clarify experimental details, 2) a slight restructuring of the text and improved naming conventions for the experiment groups, 3) the addition of new experiments that allow comparison to Figs 13&14 in [Cornford et al 2020], and 4) a more nuanced wording of the conclusions. I would like to add one minor personal comment (see below) and kindly ask you to submit a revised version of your manuscript, which includes your suggested changes.

All the best,
Jan De Rydt - editor

---------------
In lines 165-166 on Page 7 and in your response to the reviewer #1, you say that it is ‘not obvious which melt treatment is best for a buttressed ice shelf’. I think it is worth reiterating here that a necessary condition for any melt treatment is that, if applied to an unbuttressed SSA ice shelf in steady state, the GL should remain stationary.

Dear Dr Leguy and co-authors,

Thank you for your submission of a revised manuscript. Based on the implemented changes and your detailed response to the reviewer reports, I'm pleased to accept your work for publication in The Cryosphere. I have indicated the need for technical corrections to allow you to include a Data Availability statement that fulfils the Copernicus Data Policy requirements (https://www.the-cryosphere.net/policies/data_policy.html).

I would like to thank both reviewers for their support, and yourself for choosing The Cryosphere to publish your work.

All the best,
Jan De Rydt - editor