Dear Rohi Muthyala and co-authors,

Thank you for providing detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments. Based on those, I invite you to submit a revised manuscript.

The reviewers raised concerns that need to be addressed in the revised manuscript. The revised manuscript should 1) stress the novelties and broader impact of the study, 2) provide an extended discussion on the shift in timing of daily maximum discharge, and elaborate on driving processes.

Please be informed that the revised manuscript will be sent to reviewers #1 and #2 for re-evaluation.
Best wishes,

Brice Noël

Dear Rohi Muthyala and co-authors,

We have now received comments from reviewers #1 and #2. Both reviewers are very positive about your revised manuscript. While reviewer #1 recommends publication, reviewer #2 requests minor corrections/clarifications before acceptance of your manuscript. The editor joins both reviewers and invites the authors to submit a revised manuscript, that will be re-evaluated by the editor before acceptance for publication in TC.

In their revised manuscript the authors should: 1) clarify what they mean by “seasonal variability” as only one melt season is discussed in the manuscript (e.g. in L250 as suggested by reviewer #2), 2) elaborate on the water-level peak at the end of the cryoconite record (i.e., in Fig. 9c), 3) update the Conclusions to match the Discussion section concerning the explanations of the change in peak time lag.

Besides, the authors can find some additional minor editor comments below.

Best wishes,
Brice Noël

Editor comments:
L48-49: The editor suggests: “... study on the export of nitrogen from the Greenland …”
L85-86: For consistency with L398, the authors could remove the Izeboud et al. (2020) reference in L85.
L88 and L470: Noël et al. (2018).
L385: Add a space between “25-50 km2” and “(40-80 times…”.

Figure 1 : Add the location of the cryoconite hole as requested by reviewer #2.
Figure 3: Could the authors align Figs. 3a and 3b on their x-axis (i.e., so that the “-2” at the bottom left in both graphs are aligned)?

Table A1: For variables Ume to Swl, use a capital letters for “Uncertainty” and “Standard” in the “description” column.
Table A2: For variable Um add brackets around “(for a minimum … 10 verticals)”.
For variable Uc add the missing bracket after “ms-1)”.
For variable M add the missing bracket after “10-16)”.
For variable K add brackets around “(for 95% CI)”.

Dear Rohi Muthyala and co-authors,

Thank you very much for providing your answers to the reviewer and editor comments. The editor joins both reviewers and recommends publication of your manuscript in TC. Before publication, the authors should consider the few technical corrections/suggestions listed below. Note that the line numbering refers to the track-changes document.

Congratulations on the acceptance of your paper, you did a great work in the revision process! Thank you for publishing your study in TC!

Best wishes,
Brice Noël

Editor technical corrections:
L15: “spanning the majority of melt season” or better “spanning most of the melt season”.
L75-78: Please add a “the” before “weathering crust”. This applies to the whole manuscript.
L85: “report that an increase …”
L140: “and locations of the discharge station, cryoconite hole, and terminal moulin”.
L148: “The period covers the majority of the melt season” or better “The period covers most of the melt season”.
L417: “through the melt season from 3 hours …”
L422: “initial melt season conditions”.
L425: “the weathering crust”.
L441: “at freezing temperature”.
L468: “Our analysis of a melt season-long …”
L493: “3 hours in late June to 1 hour …”
Table A1: For variables N, n, M and K add a capital to “Number of …” and “Coverage factor …” in the Description column.
L539: Add a space between “… Xdm) are …”
L555-556: Make sure to update the data availability statement with a proper PANGEA link and DOI.