To the authors,

You have thoroughly addressed the comments of the reviewers, which were largely positive and supportive of publication. I therefore invite you to submit the revised manuscript for further minor revisions.

Best regards,
Alex

To the authors,

The manuscript appears to have improved significantly following your revisions. I believe it is ready for publication after consideration of a few minor points listed below.

Cheers,
Alex

Minor comments:

L17: sea level rise => sea-level rise

L35: focussing => focusing

L46: T2m <= Consider using subscript "T_2m", or removing italics. I assume this name relates directly to its name in the ECMWF dataset. Check for consistency throughout the manuscript.

L48, Eq. 1: Should the "int" subscript appear here? This is a general equation used for both reanalyses right?

L55: "ISMIP6 orography H_ice" <= Are temperatures scaled by H_ice or surface elevation, as the latter would be the more relevant variable. On line 60, surface elevation is even mentioned. Usually H = ice thickness and h = surface elevation (or z_srf, for example would be more direct). Please just double check that you are happy with this choice.

L75: South Eastern margins = > southeastern margins

L80 and rest of section: the term "mean bias" is somewhat confusing in this context, as bias is usually relative to a chosen reference. Here you are comparing ERAI to ERA5 and it is not clear which one you assume then to be the reference. This is also problematic when you refer to the two standard deviations ("The mean bias exceeds two standard deviations") as again the question arises as to which dataset provides the measure of the standard deviation. To solve this, I would add a few sentences to define your metholodogy more clearly. State explicitly which dataset is considered the reference. Or, if you don't mean to define a reference, then change from "bias" to simply "difference". In this case, it should be made clear how the standard deviation is calculated that is used as the measure of variability. Note that when comparing to the AWS data, I see no problem, as clearly the AWS data would be the reference and the renalysis is biased relative to that.

L92: comparrison = > comparison

L94: Fig. 2) => Figure 2 [When starting a setence, the whole word should be used.]

L99: In Fig. 3 height range => In Fig. 3, the elevation range considered

L124: In case => In the case

L124: air temperature => air temperature,

To the authors,

The manuscript is almost ready, except for some remaining technical corrections:

L17: global sea-level. => global sea level.

L46: between sea-level => between sea level

L100: above sealevel => above sea level

Note that the hyphen is only needed when "sea level" is an adjective, as in "sea-level rise". "Sea level" as a noun takes no hyphen.

Best regards,
Alex