Dear authors,
following up on the reviews received for your manuscript it appears that both referees rate your contribution as highly interesting and relevant for the HESS reader community. The two referees (and I do agree) see much potential for increasing the readability and structure of your paper - please follow their quite detailed suggestions for improvement in this respect.
One referee sees some need for clarification related to the conceptualisation and results of the ice model (essentially due to the fact that no glacier retreat is modelled). You may also consider to develop on this more specific aspect in your revised version.
Best regards,
Laurent Pfister

Dear authors,
following up on the assessment of the revised version of your manuscript, a few (rather minor) issues remain to be addressed before acceptance for publication. There have been substantial improvements made - but a relatively important concern still lies in the structuring of the paper. I agree with referee 2 that your contribution would largely benefit from a careful separation between elements related to results and those belonging to the discussion. It is not always straightforward to make that clear distinction, but it is nonetheless an important point that greatly helps the reader to find her/his way through the manuscript. A few additional other points listed by referee 2 might equally be addressed. Overall, the required changes should not be too difficult to implement before further processing of your manuscript.
Best regards,
Laurent Pfister

Dear authors,
following up on the modifications suggested during the 2nd review step and that you have implented in your revised manuscript, I am pleased to let you know that your paper is now acceptable for final publication in HESS. My congratulations for this very interesting contribution!
Best regards,
Laurent Pfister