Many thanks for the responses to the review comments. Both reviewers had a number of major concerns, which were partly addressed in the responses. Some of the concerns were not addressed (e.g. comments #5 and #6 of reviewer #1, and comment on validation against snow depth data of reviewer #2). From my own reading of the paper I tend to agree with the reviewers that the extent of the analysis probably does not justify strong statements such as ”We conclude that the MODIS Terra CGF is the more accurate MODIS snow-cover product” (p.1).

On the basis of the responses alone it is difficult to assess whether a revised manuscript would be acceptable in the light of these concerns, so I suggest the authors upload a revision, which will be re-reviewed.

Dear authors

the reviewers appreciate the changes made. I am happy to accept the paper subject to the following technical corrections:

Please correct the numbering of part 4 - there are two chapters 4.3. there.

Please check the quality of all figures. Sharpness of the figures is not very good (e.g. the legend in Fig. 5 is hardly readable). Especially Figs. 9 and 10 should be improved in the final version.

Caption of Fig. 2 says that regions of interest (the Sierra Nevada and the Wind River Range Mountains) are outlined in red (line 253), but the rectangles in the pdf file I reviewed are gray and not clearly distinguished from the borders of the states.

Best wishes
Güner Blöschl