|I have read the two initial reviews, the authors reply as well as the new version of the manuscript. I think the idea beyond this study is interesting and the results obtained deserve to be published. The new version has been improved after this first step review. Nevertheless, I have still some comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript, as well as some typos. |
- despite the fact that it is shown that the way the initial perturbation is applied doesn't play a role in the obtained results, it would be nice to explain the basal melting perturbation more deeply. I am not able to understand what is really done by just reading the sentence page 4 (lines 25-27). The accumulation perturbation is even better explained in the appendix. You should make clearer what is really done to force the GL to retreat on RHS basin.
- The notation used (xc, xs, xd, bc) should be added in Figure 3. Also, from my understanding, only bc is varied. Are the elevation in xs and xd keep constant should be specified and values given somewhere.
- Because of the time involved (few ka) for the perturbation to propagate, I am wondering what would be the influence of accounting for isostasy? The bedrock topography will not stay symmetric during the perturbation phase. This missing process might change the conclusion of the paper. At least, this should be mentioned and discussed a bit in the conclusion section.
- I don't think the comparison with the Vialov profile is pertinent. By imposing from the model the dome elevation and length of the ice-sheet, this is no surprise that the Vialov shapes are in relatively good agreement. I guess that a parabola going through these two points with horizontal asymptote at the dome would do a reasonable job too? I would suggest to suppress this section.
- page 12, line 7: it should be mentioned that it is equivalent to a plane strain formulation for a 'true' flow line model.
- page 12, line 9: isn't it x=800km for the front position?
- page 12, line 11: the Delta_y spacial resolution is of no interest (should not have any influence on the solution).
- page 15, line 16: Isn't it Q_g instead of Q_q?
- page 16, line 3: cannot be compensated the decrease -> cannot be compensated by the decrease (?)
- page 17, line 7: why the Vialov profils are not shown in panel a also? (In fact i would suggest not to show the Vialov profile, see above)
- page 17, line 7: from our simulation -> from our steady simulation
- Equation 7: give value for Delta_t_min, DeltH,min. What is C? A constant? Give its value?
- page 20, line 15: it should be made reference to the Appendix where the accumulation perturbation is explained in detail.
- page 22, line 7: profiles differ at the end -> profiles differ only at the end
- Figure 1: add the other notation xc, ..., bc
- Figure 4, legend: The bottom panel is the c panel
- Last figure is 11 not 1.