Decision of editor based on comments of three reviews, minor revisions undertaken and the revised version of the manuscript.

Dear M. Fischer
This paper received three initial reviews that were all very positive and suggested only very minor/technical revisions.
The authors addressed all the minor issues raised by the reviewers very well and corrected the technical/language issues. Therefore I am very happy to inform you that the paper will be accepted after correction(addressing of a few very minor technical issues that are listed below.
I thank the authors for their careful revisions.

Technical very minor comments/corrections:

P1. Line 51: I would delete the ‘even’ together with the ‘notably’ there area bit too many such words.

p. 3 caption fig 1, line 3: insert ‘(on left side)’ after ‘study glaciers’

p. 4 table 1 line 1: correct: ‘ parafs’ to ‘parameter’

p. 4 line 27: there is something wrong in this sentence around ‘…to the importance…’. It says ‘pointed out’ so the ‘to the importance’ can refer to ‘pointed’. If you leave away the ‘out’ it may work (or replace ‘pointed out’ by ‘referred’. Does this then still say what you want?

p. 5 line 44: can you confirm that it is V 2.1 (in your review response you said 10.1)

p. 5 line 58: ‘were’ instead of ‘was’ (‘a number of … were..’)

p. 6 line 44/45: is Sold et al 2015 the right reference, in the author response you referred to Cuffey and Paterson 2010)?

p. 6 line 61 and also line 62: few 10^0 m/y? why not say ‘few metres’? I would think it should probably be 10^(-1) m/y as it says in response. Maybe something went wrong here. check and correct accordingly.

p. 6 line 25: I would replace ‘stronger’ with ‘higher’, mass loss can not be ‘strong’ but high or low. I guess because it is a negative number you wanted to avoid confusion but you take about ‘mass loss’ and if this is ‘high’ it is more negative.

The editor
Andreas Vieli