Re-Review of Hinzmann et al., ERL, November 2023

This is a slightly modified version of the original manuscript taking into account the referee comments, hence my general opinion is unchanged. I only have a few comments.

Authors told in their answer to the reviewers. "We would like to point out that, in the past, studies have already made projections which would state that the glaciers on Kilimanjaro should be gone by now (e.g. Thompson et al. 2002; Science, 298)." This is actually an interesting point that would deserve to be discussed/elaborated on in the paper. Could the agony of these glaciers be longer than thought? Some processes that protect them when their reach a small size?

Technical comments

P2. L40. Delete “the latest determinations of” as RGI70 is now out (I do not ask the authors to update your number, although they could)

P5. L15. “and” instead of “an”

P6. L28. “The uncertainty is then derived from the overall average deviation of the primary extent from the minimum and maximum extents”. What was really done is not exactly clear to me. Can authors show the values of the min/primary/max extent (in km²) in Figure 2 and the resulting uncertainties so that it is crystal clear for all readers and reproducible. Others may want to use the same method in the future.

P7 L23. Rework the text following recent publication of RGI70