Dear Weilin Yang,

thank you for your detailed and comprehensive responses to the reviewers' comments. I invite you to submit the revised version of the manuscript, which will be reviewed again, before I will make a final decision on the publication.

Cheers,
Ben Marzeion

Dear authors,

thanks again for submitting the revised version of the manuscript. Two reviewers (one of them new to the manuscript) have now provided their comments. Both agree (as do I) that the revised version of the manuscript is much improved, but that there are still a number of points that need to be addressed before publication. In particular, I would like to point out the somewhat major suggestion by reviewer #4 to better address the adequacy of the model system to present-day glaciers, and the sensitivity of the results to the chosen value of beta.

Please prepare a further version of the manuscript with a point-by-point reply to the reviewers' comments, on which I will then base my final decision.

Best regards,
Ben Marzeion

Dear authors,

thank you for submitting the revised manuscript, and the generally well-argued response to the reviewers' comments! There is one last issue which I would like to ask you to address:

In response to reviewer 2, and following his suggestion, you added a statement saying "Note that the model is unable to capture some small glaciers, which rely on local topography, preferential deposition and redistribution of snow, or avalanching for their existence." However, this is in contradiction to a statement a few lines above, where you say that the number of glaciers is reduced by some exceeding the model domain boundary. This would also be my prime suspicion because of the dependency on beta - and it could relatively easily be mitigated by increasing the border parameter of OGGM. A potential benefit would be that now, those glaciers are missing in your study that apparently show the strongest (relative) length changes (otherwise, they would not exceed the boundary). Including them might increase the claritiy of the signal you are after.

Please have a detailed look at what causes OGGM to fail for these glaciers, and adjust the text accordingly (if it is really the smallest of glaciers, you could indicate the percentage of glacier area successfully modeled, in addition to the number of glaciers, so that it becomes clear that despite many glaciers failing in the model, you nevertheless see a signal representative of the region). Depending on what you find, you may decide for yourself whether new models runs, with an increased border parameter, are necessary or desirable.

Best regards,
Ben Marzeion

Dear Authors,

thanks a lot for providing the detailed and clarifying answer, and the subsequent changes in the manuscript. I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication in TC.

Best regards,
Ben