Dear Kate,

Thanks for this new version of your manuscript as well as the point-by-point reply to both reviews. Both reviews were mostly positive to the presented results. Moreover, all points raised by the reviewers have been answered and the new version has been significantly improved. I am therefore happy to accept this version of your paper in TC. I have however founded few typos that should be corrected for the final version.

Thank you for having submitted your work in TC.
Best regards
Olivier Gagliardini


Technical corrections (line numbers refer to the version showing changes):
- line 75: the number of studied glaciers is not consistent all over the manuscript. Here, Upper Winthrop is missing? Check this all along the manuscript
- line 196: Delaney -> Delauney
- line 321 and many other places: in Fig. 3-6 -> in Figs. 3-6 (also you are often using on Fig. instead of in Fig. - check all the manuscript).
- line 443: which method was used by Hodge to make this estimate? If not specified in Hodge's paper, it should be mentioned.
- line 449: five decades -> four decades
- line 461: why do you mention strain-rates now when it is not discussed or mentioned before?
- line 474: same remark. No strain-rate analysis has been done, so the assertion that the strain-rates are high is not supported (what is a high strain-rate moreover?). The point is that you should either add material showing measured strain-rate (and give clear explanations about what you are referencing to by strain-rate: surface strain-rate, which components, principal components?) or remove these sentences about strain-rate (which appear much too late in the paper without any support in the main text).
- tables: the font size of the text in the Tables should be identical to the one of the main text. In Tab. 1 it is too small, and too large in Tab. 2.