The reviewers were generally positive about the manuscript, particularly the novelty and usefulness of the MFUQ method introduced. They, however, were less positive about the presentation of the method and discussion, which they considered a bit too technical and unfriendly to a non-statistician, and generally found the manuscript a bit difficult to read. Furthermore, one of the reviewers indicated some problems regarding the methodology, and the omission of a relevant method, BR23.

The authors addressed all these issues with a substantial and thoroughly revision, particularly improving the readability of the manuscript, incorporating the BR23 method to the discussion, and correcting typos and other errors. The authors also provided a revised version of the manuscript, which merits publication after another round of revisions by the same reviewers, which will give them a chance to feedback any further concern they might have.

I invite the authors to upload the revised manuscript, and the reviewers to look at the responses and the revision.

Dear John,

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript "An evaluation of multi-fidelity methods for quantifying uncertainty in projections of ice-sheet mass-change". I have carefully reviewed the resubmission along with the reviewers' comments.

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been provisionally accepted subject to minor revisions, as you have successfully addressed most of the substantive concerns raised in the previous review round. While the manuscript has significantly improved, there are a few remaining points that require your attention. The reviewers have provided constructive feedback that will enhance the clarity and impact of your paper, and the acceptance is conditional to a satisfactory revision of the points raised by the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript addressing these final comments, including a detailed response document outlining how you have addressed each point.

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript.

Best regards,
Francisco

The authors have addressed well and fully the comments made by the reviewers in the second round of revisions.