Dear Dr. Steiner,

Many thanks for addressing the points made by the reviewers and your suggested edits. As these are substantial changes, include more detail on the methodology and broaden the manuscript into energy balance modelling and sub-region analysis, I would like to ask the reviewers to take a look at the changes you have made.

Please could you ensure the correct Figure AR7 has been included (at the moment AR7 is a duplicate of Figure 8). AR3 is also the same as AR8 but has the same caption. Please could you also revise Figure AR2 as similar coloured lines are difficult to distinguish in AR2b and AR2c (perhaps use different line styles).

Please upload a new version of your paper taking all the proposed changes into account.

Many thanks for all your efforts and I look forward to seeing the revised paper.

With best wishes,
Mel

Thank you for the substantial work on this paper, including restructuring, different sub-region analysis, addition of energy balance modelling, more details on the methodology and making the figures clearer. This is now much more readable and of broader interest to the community. In light of the substantial changes I'll ask the reviewers to have another look. Please could you consider these minor issues:

Page 4, line 4: retirevals -> retrievals
Page 12, second paragraph: 'never above zero but experience above zero maximum glacier surface temperatures during starting in June 2019' should this be maximum air temperatures at the glacier surface?
Page 17, 1st paragraph: '~5,400-6,2000m' -> ~5,400-6,200m
Page 18: 'brightening of the radar signal due to surface scattering contributions from wet debris'. Would absorption in wet debris result in a decrease in backscatter or is this potential effect more to do with roughness effects or the composition of the debris?
Supplementary material - is the longwave radiation measured or modelled?

Dear Dr. Steiner,

Many thanks for submitting a revised version of your manuscript. Please consider the points raised in the second review report carefully and provide a detailed response.

Many thanks and with best wishes,
Mel

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for the work you have done to address the comments of the reviewers and to improve this paper. This paper is now ready for publication subject to the following technical corrections:

Line 16: (83,102 km2 glacierized area), defined using optical observations may read better as (83,102 km2 glacierized area, defined using optical observations) [optional]

Line 111: Importantly for melt retirevals -> Importantly for melt retrievals

Line 116: thus progressivly -> thus progressively

Line 313: data is -> data are

Figure 6 caption: Mean melt onset (MO) and freeze onset (FO) -> Mean melt onset (MO, left) and freeze onset (FO, right)

Figure 8 caption: (C) Mean melt offset (DOY) in the Central Himalaya. (D) Mean melt offset -> (C) Mean freeze onset (DOY) in the Central Himalaya. (D) Mean freeze onset

Supplementary material, line 15: The𝑄S𝑊 -> 𝑄S𝑊

Please add the link to the code and data in the Code and Data Availability section.

With best wishes,
Mel