Dear Authors,

I have received the second round of the reviews. According to the reviewer's comments the paper needs some minor corrections. Please see the comments below.

REVIEWER 1:
The authors satisfactorily addressed my main points from the first round of reviews. I believe the article should be suitable now for publication in TC. Before that, however, please consider to take into account my few specific comments below.

Lines 116-121 (reply by authors): I do not see the advantage of testing a ‘general purpose’ model over a better model which takes into account daily cloudiness. The goal is to understand the impact of different methods to calculate on-glacier temperatures on mass balance modelling. It does not make sense to me to deliberately neglect a different source of uncertainty which could be removed (by taking into account the available daily cloudiness data), since this only dampens the capacity to identify the impact on modeled mass balances of the on-glacier temperature calculation method.

Line 952: Cite ‘Greuel and Böhm, 1998’ at the end of the sentence. Have a look also at ‘Ayala et al., 2015, JGR’, which may provide further explanations.

Line 958 (‘these two weather stations’). Please provide here the names of the stations (Car-gl_3051 and Car-gl_3082).

Lines 974-988: please use consistently the terms ‘steep’ and ‘shallow’ lapse rates, and not ‘high’ and ‘low’.

References:

Ayala, A., Pellicciotti, F., & Shea, J. M. (2015). Modeling 2 m air temperatures over mountain glaciers: Exploring the influence of katabatic cooling and external warming. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

Dear authors,

I could not find in the revised manuscript where you incorporated the point about the cloudiness. As you said in you response: 'Anyway, as suggested, we included daily cloudiness in our mass balance calculations, computed as detailed in Pellicciotti et al., (2005). No significant changes were obtained in the outcoming statistics, as reported in the following table. Based on these results, we think that the daily cloudiness could be omitted in mass balance calculations.'
Why not reporting this in the text as you did on your response? You do not need to show the results in the table, however it would be worth including a sentence so that it is clear that you have tested this effect and found that it is small.

Regards,
Valentina