Dear authors,

Your revised manuscript has been sent for a second round of reviews. By now I have received the comments from one of the reviewers (see below). Based on the received review your manuscript will be acceptable for publication after some minor revisions are implemented. Please upload on the system your rebuttal letter and the revised manuscript.

Thank you,
Valentina

Review:

The authors have substantially revised their analysis and the manuscript. The MODIS evaluation procedure is significantly improved by comparing the spatial SCA patterns instead of spatial averages and by excluding glacier pixels from the analysis. Also the one-watershed validation assessment is very insightful due to the contrasting results with the proxy-basin tests. All of my initial comments have been addressed and I recommend publishing the manuscript in TC subject to a few technical corrections:

- Abstract, L1-2: possibly avoid the word "scenarios" (2x), as I assume you refer to the changing climate itself and not to climate (change) scenarios
- P12 L8: c_hoc,s and c_hoc,i do not appear in eq. (9)
- P13 L13: "where the negative bound on w_c is zero" -> possibly move this part a few lines up (after eq. (14) where w_c is introduced); replace "negative bound" with "lower bound"
- P20 L14: missing parentheses around citations
- P20 L29: typo in "cyrosphere"
- Tables B3, B4, B5: "one minus the PBE or KGE score" is a bit misleading (I interpret this that one minus PBE or one minus KGE are shown, whereas in fact - if I understand correctly - one minus PBE, or KGE (without one minus) are shown?) - possibly reformulate this.

General remark: the parts that were changed in the manuscript are highlighted in the revised version, but to determine what exactly had been changed I had to compare it with the original manuscript (additionally, some changed parts are not highlighted, e.g. P2 L18-34, P16 L13-18, P18 L2-10). For the future I would recommend to use latexdiff or similar tools to mark the changes.

Dear Authors,

I have just one minor comment/request:

Can you please make Figure A1 more meaningful. Currently it's manly blue that is visible and no differentiation of other color is really possible for the given scale. It would help if the upper limit for y-axis is lower, for example.

Cheers,
Valentina