Dear Authors,

the reviewers provide substantial criticisms to the submitted manuscript, and, at the same time, do underline the presence of interesting results. I kindly ask you to revise the manuscript following the reviewers' suggestions. In particular, it seems relevant to make the paper more self contained by clarifying the properties/features of the adopted model (constitutive and evolution equations) and making clear which approximations/working hypotheses have been adopted and why (2D dynamics, no mass influx, present-day mass balance etc). This will greatly improve the quality of the paper.

Dear authors,

I see that you have not yet addressed the second part of comment 2 from Referee 1, nor mentioned whether the figure from Dowdeswell 2012 they use is obtained with permission or modified or reconstructed from the dataset. I kindly ask you to do this and resubmit.

Thanks.

Valerio Lucarini

Dear Authors,

I see that a lot of work has been done on your side, but I would like to have the referees give a final look, because many issues are partly open.

As for the language, I recommend you to have the manuscript proof-read by a native speaker. It is not the job of the Editor to rewrite the text! Copernicus can provide support, but this comes at a cost.

Best Regards,

Valerio Lucarini

Dear Authors,

I send the paper back for an additional round of reviews by the referees.

Best Regards,

Valerio Lucarini