|In general, the authors have done a good job revising the manuscript. In particular, I appreciate the inclusion of an attempt to verify the SSA part of the model, and the performance of the model with respect to grounding line dynamics.|
On the abbreviation "UFEMISM":
I still don't like it. Every knowledgeable reader will immediately assume that it is a finite-element model, and this is unnecessarily misleading. Granted, "UFVMISM" is not so nice to pronounce, but still, this is not good... Should be reconsidered.
P. 5, Eqs. (1), (2), and explaining text:
The quantity D shouldn't be called a "diffusivity" as it does not appear in any diffusion equation. What is usually called diffusivity D in this context is the depth integral of your D (e.g., Huybrechts et al. 1996, Greve and Blatter 2009 ["Dynamics of Ice Sheets and Glaciers", Springer]). This is the quantity that appears as a diffusivity in the SIA version of the ice thickness equation. However, it is irrelevant in your context as you don't have pure SIA dynamics, so that you must solve the general form of the ice thickness equation (your Eq. (B1)).
P. 5, Eqs. (1):
The variable zeta should be defined (appears only later in Eq. (D1)). As the non-transformed integral goes from b to z [e.g., Eq. (5.93) by Greve and Blatter (2009) without the contribution from Weertman sliding that you don't have], the transformed integral must go from zeta to 1, and the integration variable should be called zeta' or zeta-bar rather than zeta.
P. 6, l. 5-8:
Related to the above said, classifying your model as a Type I model in the sense of Huybrechts et al. (1996) is not appropriate. It does not fit this classification pattern at all as you do not solve the diffusive SIA version of the ice thickness equation.
P. 6, Eqs. (6), (7), and explaining text:
As for the strain heating, it is not sufficient to say that this is "for grounded ice only". The form you give in Eq. (7) is only valid for the SIA. Since you have hybrid SIA/SSA dynamics for grounded ice rather than SIA, it is an additional simplification to assume that the strain heating is SIA-type. This should be stated clearly.
P. 15, l. 3-9:
I understand that the experiment, in the authors' words, "is not intended to present a realistic depiction of possible future Antarctic retreat. It only serves to demonstrate computational performance of the model." Nevertheless, I think it should be described in more detail to allow the readers assessing what is going on. Quoting my original review: "What are the initial conditions for the experiments? What are the physical parameters (rate factor, basal sliding law, heat conductivity & capacity, geothermal heat flux, etc.)? What is assumed for ice-shelf basal melting?" If the authors don't want to have this in the main text, it may be put in an appendix section.