Dear Dr. Hartl and co-authors,

Thank you for this revised version and for addressing the reviewers' comments.

The reviewers confirmed that your dataset is valuable and well-structured and that your article was well written despite the amount and complexity of the data that you have to present.

I still have some comments on your tables and figures, some of which I still find hard to read. Once you have addressed those comments, I will be happy to accept your manuscript for publication without further review.

Kind regards,
Baptiste Vandecrux

---

Figure 1: Please harmonize the way you present elevation: make all text labels black, show names of AWS (AWS_VK and AWS_MWK) next to their markers and give elevation under the name without parentheses. For G, you could consider adding a black cross at the summit location.

Table 2: I am wondering if the table would be clearer if transposed. It also starts to be many values in individual cells. Consider adding more columns (in its current form) or rows, if transposed (sorry for the text formatting):

|..........................................|MWK (2007-2022)|VK (2012-2022)|
|-----------------------------------|-------------------------|----------------------|
|Intermediate measurements (stakes and snow pits):.............|
|..................................Total|.......................947|.........................X|
|.............Average per year|......................59.2|.........................X|
|..........Minimum per year|.........................33|.........................X|
|.........Maximum per year|.........................83|.........................X|
|-----------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------|
|Annual point mass balance (stakes and pits, fixed date):......|
|..................................Total|.......................947|.........................X|
|.............Average per year|......................59.2|.........................X|
|..........Minimum per year|.........................33|.........................X|
|.........Maximum per year|.........................83|.........................X|
|-----------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------|
...

Figure 2: Please move the legend so that it does not hide the axis. The legend could be made more complete and clearer by grouping markers under categories:

Gl 1-3 should be replaced by their years and shown with the same solid lines as outlines for 2012-2022. All outlines should be grouped under a "Glacier outlines" category. You can mention in the caption that the data source for each outline is given in Table 2. Why not plot all outlines from Table 2 in the Figure? If two outlines are overlapping, you can mention it in the caption. In the legend again, colored circles should be placed under a "Point measurement" category, which should also present (before the years) a black circle for "stake" and a black square for "snow pit". All the yearly markers in the legend could be replaced by a small vertical color bar with label "2007" next to the top and "2022" next to the bottom. "AWS" in the legend could be replaced by "AWS_MWK" so it doesn't have to be explained in the caption.

Figure 3: Same as Figure 2. For this Figure, "stake 95" and "stake 100/VEK-24" could be given as labels on the map next to the black circle. Maybe a single circle/oval could be used to indicate each of these stakes' areas (since they change location with the year). The same could be done in Figure 2 for stake 11.

Table 4: Make range and accuracy separate columns. Make "Wind speed" and "wind direction" two separate rows that share the same instrument. Remove "Wind Speed & Direction Sensor" from the sensor name cell, as it is completely redundant with the parameter name. Make "Shortwave radiative flux" and "Longwave radiative flux" separate rows that share the same sensor. The calibration date and derived uncertainty do not fit with the Range and Accuracy columns of the other parameters. Please move that information to the main text and explain what the reported uncertainty means or how it should be used. The table caption should describe what is in the table, but "Data logger at both stations: Campbell Scientific CR3000." is information of its own. Please move it to the text.

Table 5: You tend to use lines to report multiple pieces of information: [parameter + site] or [% flagged for SWin + SWout]. This makes the table more complicated to read. Please make separate rows for wind speed and wind direction, for downwelling/upwelling shortwave/longwave radiation. Please move "low temperature flags" to the caption or to a note at the bottom of the table. I strongly suggest that you make two columns "% flagged for AWS_MWK" and "% flagged for AWS_VK" and have one row per parameter. The Start/End dates were very hard to read and understand due to the grouping per parameter instead of per station. It would be much clearer to say that "AWS_MWK was active between 2020-08-10 and 2023-10-31 (except for radiation which started on 2021-09-21 and snow height which is available between 2019-07-01 and 2022-06-02)." and "AWS_VK was active between 2019-09-19 and 2023-10-31 (except for snow height which is available between 2020-07-01 and 2022-06-28)." This information should appear clearly in the text (instead of a very unspecific "... for a sub-period of the overall time series" on l.333), and if you think it is important, in the caption of Table 5. I feel that if the dates are clear in the text, they do not need to appear in Table 5.

Figure 4 and 5: Please make sure that "July 1" and "September 30" do not overlap with the figures' frames.

Figure 7 & 8: A lot of plotting space is lost between the panels. I strongly suggest you update these figures so that the year is inside each panel on the bottom left or center and that the axis ticks point inward. Then the space between subplots can be removed altogether. Optional: make a legend showing the different types of markers and place it to the right of the 2022 panel.

Figure 8: Please increase the size of the probing circles (unless my previous comment makes them visible enough). Give an edge color to them.

Figure 9 & 10: Same as Figure 7 & 8. Please place the year in the top-right corner of each panel and remove space between subplots. A single-line legend could be placed at the top.

Figure 12 & 13: Optional: You could put the year in the top left corner and remove the spaces between subplots. This would allow putting both figures on the same page.

Figure 14 and S3: I cannot distinguish daily mean RH and daily mean pressure. Please plot the two variables in separate panels. For temperature, I do not see what "daily low/high, monthly mean" can be used for. Is it used in the text? If not, it can be removed from the graph. For all panels, make the legend a single line (except for radiation where there is space) and modify the y-axis to ensure that the legend does not mask the data. Please plot longwave radiation as well.

I strongly suggest bringing Figure S3 into the manuscript as Figure 15 and removing Table 6, which doesn't give more information than Figure 14 and S3. The first paragraph of Section 3.2 can be supported by Figure 14 and S3 without problem.

Table 7: Please make the DOIs clickable hyperlinks. Make sure "DOI" is capitalized in the entire article. Capitalize "Reference" just like the other column headers.

Figure S1 and S2: Great work to remove all this noise. I am wondering if the plotted data are hourly averages of 10-minute values. If that is the case, I am wondering whether you are de-noising the 10-minute data or directly the hourly averages. I have seen that type of noise in Greenland AWS data. It appeared when the sonic rangers "see" two reflectors (one being the surface the other one that could be the station mast or a cable). The hourly average then jumps based on how many times the wrong reflector was picked during that hour. Going back to the highest temporal resolution should show those two separate reflectors without the mixing induced by temporal averaging and should make the removal of the spurious reflector easier. This does not have to be implemented for the publication of this article.

Figure 15 and Lines 451-454: Present the PDD sums for the two stations. Since PDD is not a variable present in your dataset, it falls outside of the scope of an ESSD article, which should only describe the dataset. Please either remove or boil it down to a single sentence stating which years had the highest/lowest numbers of positive degree days. Figure 15 should be removed anyway.

l. 514: "are advantageous in terms of" replace with "have the advantage of"