Dear Authors,

Many thanks for your efforts in addressing the points raised by the two reviewers. The manuscript is much improved now, but there are a few places where I think a more in-depth response to Dr Edwards' comments is necessary. I would be grateful if you could address these, after which we can proceed to publication.

I refer to the original page numbers of the article, for ease of reference to the Dr Edwards' comments:

1907/15: Although you have made a minor update to the sentence referred to, I don't think you have fully acknowledged the point made by the reviewer. The emphasis of the sentence needs to change - essentially, the use of semi-empirical models in sea-level prediction is not sufficiently important that they can be used as a motivation for your work. Please revise the sentence fully to reflect the situation in the latest IPCC work.

1920/12: Again, you have cited the paper referred to by the reviewer, but not addressed the substantive point, which is that there isn't always wide variation in projections of sea level rise.

1920/27: Again, you need to address the substantive point of the reviewer, namely that your presentation of the current state of the art is incomplete.

1908: You need to include citations of the other papers mentioned by the reviewer (Goelzer, etc.)

1918/5: I don't think the revised sentence is clear on the point of concern, namely that it is synthetic volume you are considering.

Many thanks for your contribution to GMD.

Best wishes,

Ian Rutt

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for your prompt revisions to this paper. I agree with you that it is reasonable to disagree on some of these points - the main thing is to acknowledge this disagreement. I am happy that your revisions address this sufficiently.

All best wishes,

Ian Rutt