It seems like the authors have a good plan to address the referees concerns. Please move ahead with the proposed revisions, and I'll look over the final manuscript.

Sorry for the delay in getting this decision done. I've had a look through the manuscript, and found some edits that I'd like to see made. Please submit a revision and we'll move the paper along from here.

Line 7: “While all sources of uncertainty contribute at least 15% to uncertainty until the end of the century, SSp-related uncertainty dominates at 40%” – this sentence is not at all clear. 15% of what? Which undercertainty? If it’s mass loss, AOGCM seems to contribute nothing at the end of the century. Please clarify or delete.

Line 30 : Addition of -> addition to

Line 42: as evidenced by -> as is evident from

58: Please justify or delete “providing more robust results.” This needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted.

110: Please add a reference to appendix A to help the reader understand what the model parameters are

115: model led -> modelled

119: observations from wood et al (2021) -> observations (Wood et all, 2021)


134: mitigate appears twice

141: check volume unit notation

156: Would it make more sense to say “the uncertain parameters related to the SSP do not affect Hpr and Cpr”?

184: The notation for the Heaviside function would be clearer if it were written F0(Q; Q0) or F0(Q, Q0), or even F0(Q-Q0) (to match the standard definition of a Heaviside function)

203: “data with” -> “data for”

207: check notation on nobs

217: delete ‘considerable”

217: observations is necessary -> observations would be necessary

229: change to parenthetical reference : “as previously identified (wernecke et al, 2020).”

244: Please justify or provide a citation for the statement that “the minimum RMS corresponds to the configuration with the least structural error.” Is this statement remarkable because it has been discovered in this study?

Line 318 / Figure 5: This figure is too small in the inset version. The tick lines would be helpful here, but they are too light to see.

356 “which demonstrate the most pronounced impact”- this seems redundant to the first clause of the sentence. Please either give a numerical description of the impact, or delete this phrase.

377: provide a name for the m parameter

Figure 7: This figure is also too small and too faint. Please make the font larger and the lines bolder

412: It would be good if, before this point, some explanation had been provided about what happens when you try to derive calibration parameters in areas where the ice front has already retreated (I think this is the problem under discussion here). This is a problem with the way that the model is calibrated using the later time periods, and it would be good to acknowledge earlier in the paper that it causes difficulties. Please find a place to add this to the text.

442: Please explain what “lower members” are.

Figure 8: Again, the labels on the axes are too small, and the lines are too faint.
Caption to figure 8 : please refer to panels by letter, rather than by “top left” etc.

475, and the remainder of this section “The SSP weighting on the future prediction has a very significant effect” and similar statements: It would be good to establish a standard for what changes are significant. For example, is it significant that a confidence interval changes by ~10% of its previous value? It would also be good to use expressions like “essentially unchanged” when values do not change very much (e.g. the medians in lines 477, 483, and 486).

Figure 10: Label panel with letters, and add references in the text to each panel.

493: Please check the use of “significantly”

497: Please be specific about what the panels in figure 10 to which you are referring, and explain the significance of “a shift to higher probabilities”

533: delineate -> describe

565: check use of “significant”

580: Explain what is influenced by front position

619: bay -> embayment

Thanks for responding to my comments. The manuscript should be in good shape to move on from here.

Congratulations!
--Ben