The authors have responded to all reviewer and community comments and should now prepare and submit their revised manuscript. Both reviewers suggested to consider the necessary revisions as major.

The authors have clearly improved the manuscript by responding to the reviewers' suggestions. The reviewers (and me) agree that the manuscript is highly relevant and could be suitable for the cryosphere. However, there are still several issues to address before the manuscript can be seen as publishable. These are pointed out in the reviewers' comments, but I also wish to add that I find some of the authors' responses (especially concerning the comments of referee #2) a bit light. In my view, the readability of the manuscript still suffers from the non-traditional structure of the manuscript, and the repretitions between text and figure captions are a bit confusing, too. I urge the authors to reconsider referee #2's comments from the first round in order to have a more readable manuscript.

The authors have further improved the manuscript. While the review process revealed some differing opinions between the reviewers and authors regarding stylistic and structural aspects of the manuscript, the scientific content is clearly presented and meets the standards of The Cryosphere. The study provides sufficient transparency for readers to assess the methods, results, and interpretations, and thus I consider it a valuable contribution to the literature. Readers will be able to form their own judgement on the conclusions presented.