Dear authors,

thanks for the detailed discussion on your manuscript in HESSD. The reviews boil down to better argumentation of the scenarios and also signal in my opinion a need for more scientific use of definitions, terminology and listing of assumption. In your replies you also agree that some terminology is inaccurate. This makes the presentation (and maybe acceptance) of your methodology less strong. I do see the possible value of the presented methodology (a repeatable 'easy' methodology for GLOF hazard assessment) and want to give you credit for the ordening and use of scenarios and consequent simplifications you bring in the hazard assessment, but the current ms does not fully convince. Scenarios (somekind of perception model) and associated assumptions need to be addressed and explained fully.

The major review of the ms cannot be done by only textual editing. In my opinion the authors should really work on the presentation of their basic assumptions underlying the methodology and give/discuss the arguments, pro- and con, for scenarios, equations etc.... And by doing so, the ms can gain importance and help assessing GLOFs in different regions of the world (as was aimed for by the ms).

The revised ms will go in full review again. Overseeing the amount of work, please indicate in early stage if more time is needed for the revised version.

Kind regards
Thom Bogarad

Dear authors,

I want to give you credit for the work you did on the resubmitted article. You did a good job improving the article. I thank you for that. Your resubmission received an excellent, clear and concise review. I follow the advice of the reviewer. For me the issue of the subjectivity is the most important one to address. The article presents a novel approach for assessment of hazardeous glacial lakes, however, the subjective character and all assumptions should be clear to the readers.

I look forward receiving the revised version with detailed reply to the review in due time which will have an editorial review before publication.

Kind regards,
Thom Bogaard

Dear Authors,

thanks for the resubmission and reply to the last review. I am pleased to inform you the paper is accepted for publication. I advice the authors to have a close look at the manuscript after typesetting , the formula's contain quite some subscripts where small errors can be made.

Thanks for submitting to HESS and the interesting discussion on your research.

Kind regards, Thom