Dear Heather Selley, dear co-authors,

Two referees evaluated positively your manuscript (MS). I would like to thank both of them for their constructive and very thorough comments, including in particular very good suggestions for further improving the figures. In the online discussion, you already provided detailed responses and suggestions on how to address their suggestions and your revised MS is probably ready to be submitted.

Some specific editorial feedback after reading your response letter:
• Table associated to your response 7 is unreadable. Can you make it full width in your final response?
• Response 19. I do not have your revised text yet, but include sub-titles to the different sections of the discussion could help the readers to follow the logic.
• Two comments (32 and 76) from Rev#2 were unclear to you. I will ask the reviewer to provide (if necessary) further details when they will check the revised manuscript.

To continue with the evaluation process, I would like to ask you to upload your point-by-point response letter, the revised MS both clean and track-changed, for a full assessment by me and the reviewers.

I am looking forward to receiving this revised MS.
Best wishes,
Etienne Berthier

Dear Heather Selley, dear co-authors,

Your revised manuscript has been evaluated by both referees. They are satisfied with your responses and the changes made to the manuscript. They still have a few comments and suggestions that you will find below or attached.

Looking forward to receive your revised text.

Best regards,

Etienne Berthier

Dear Heather, dear authors,

Thanks a lot for revising your manuscript and for taking into account the final comments made by both referees. I warmly thank again them for their time.

I am pleased to accept your study for publication in TC.

I made myself a few final suggestions that you will find in the copy-annotated PDF and I trust you will take my comments (if relevant) into account before uploading the final files for copy-editing.

Supplement
Fig S2: it was not clear from the legend why you have two series of velocity maps from 2015-2022 and then 2005-2016. I suggest splitting this figure in two figures with the relevant explanation of the source in the legends (be careful to change the ref to these figures in the main).
Also in the supplement you mention “We know from IMBIE studies that any difference in the spatial and temporal domain of different datasets can result in differences between them.” Did IMBIE really look into details at the differences in velocity products? (I though not, but I may be wrong). If not, no need to mention IMBIE here.
Equation S1. Ref to a text book? Cuffey and Patterson?

Thanks for choosing our journal to publish your work,

Best regards,

Etienne Berthier