I would like to congratulate the (extensive list of) authors for compiling and presenting a wide array of technical data, for more than one location. It cannot have been easy. In particular I really enjoyed the two-three lines of conclusion in every section, which helps to summarise or underscore the most important results. The manuscript can be difficult to follow by virtue of presenting so many different formats of data (time series, maps, profiles etc). It is good that the authors have taken care to clearly present and describe figures. The paper presents a lot of nice data and acts as a reservoir of sorts for information needed in ongoing rock slope studies. 

I have made many small comments on grammar, figures, text, references etc in the attached pdf. In the beginning I made grammar suggestions, but soon switched to just highlighting text where the grammar is incorrect. There are also more important comments related to the content contained in the pdf, and in the interests of saving time have not bothered to write everything out again- please forward to the authors so that they may read them. I have described some of the more important comments here.

In some parts of the text, mostly the discussion, the paragraphs are quite rambling and are not formed in a logical manner. For example, section 5.1. I am missing the point of all of these arguments until the last section. Perhaps if the arguments were better set out, more logical or more well developed these would make sense to me. I am also missing a clear explanation between permafrost changes and changes in geotechnical characteristics. This information is seen as accepted, but the discussion is too complicated to follow without fully understanding what the different relationships are. I am missing a clear explanation of the relationship between resistivity and permafrost. This is stated at one point the results, but in the discussion it is difficult to follow (e.g. line 814). The comparison of different rockslides and their annual movement patterns is particularly difficult to follow. I have suggested a table to make it easier for the reader to keep track of the different patterns and how they compare to this study. The logic of presenting these comparisons, and threading into it the concept of reversible damage and ‘rock breathing’ further complicates the arguments for me. What is the main point of this section? The ideas behind why the slide moves more in late winter/spring are not presented until the conclusions (key word being pressure). It wouldn’t be too hard to set these out. Also, what does water infiltration mean for the potential for permafrost presence?

The temperature modelling of the sites seems to be in direct opposition to many of the conclusions drawn, including thickness, depth and extent of frozen areas taken from the geophysical surveys and temperature records. Also, in the presence of the permafrost all together as opposed to only local patches (e.g. as presented for the first time in the discussion lines c. 725-735). It may be that I misunderstand the interpretation of the modelling, but then this means the model results and their relationship to the presence of permafrost should be better explained. The main conclusion- from line 818-  is not something i would draw from both the results and the discussion. This conclusion (Our study suggests a coupling of permafrost development and landslide dynamics) contradicts the line from 777?

Geophysics at Gam-3 is missing the interpretation of signals around the rock glacier- this information is promised earlier on but not delivered in the results section.

The mapping of the rock slide features at Mannen is missing. It is difficult to place any of the results into context for a reader unfamiliar with the site. It is also difficult to place the geophysics in context without a better map and a map inset in the results section- scrolling between figure 1 and figures 10-12 makes interpretations much more difficult for the reader.

Date ranges for monitoring are difficult to find and follow. It would be easier if these are stated absolutely everytime they need to be referenced.

Corner reflectors- are these for satellite insar? This is not clarified. Terrasar-x is at some point referenced, but not when expected in the methods, and no limitations are put on (potential) satellite-insar derived data.

Sample location for rock samples for the lab analysis?

This is a very interesting and inspiring publication presenting a wealth of data, which work well together to provide a clear and consistent picture of rock slope dynamics influenced by warming permafrost. The paper is well-written and to the point. The figures are very complex and on the whole, there is more data presented than can be "digested" in a standard-length paper. But I understand that the authors like to present all the data together, even if this sometimes makes things confusing for the reader. 

I recommend the final acceptance of the paper after some minor revisions.

Fig. 1: Add "A" and "B" in the upper left inset

Clarify the relation between upper middle and upper right (took me some time to figure out). 

The red circles in these insets are somehow confusing - the caption says that these are climate stations, while the legend says these are warm BTS sites and "met. stations" would be in yellow.

Insets "B" and "C" both are extremely busy, I found it hard to tell where top and bottom of the slope are, and where the landslides actually are. This is partly due to the brownish background, but mainly due to too much information.

line 213/214: six temperature data loggers in total; 3 loggers in the back scarps of Gámanjunni; 2 loggers at Mannen - where is number 6?

line 445: please explain briefly what a "failed rockslide" is

line 446: "delineated by the dotted red line" - I cannot find such a line, do you mean the lilac one?

Figure 9: An RMS error of 19.9% is given. I know well that in areas of high resistivity contrasts, errors are usually quite high. However, 20% is a lot, and it is never discussed how this might affect the validity of the conclusions.

What is more, no RMS errors at all are provided for all the other ERT profiles. Even if the RMS is not the only criterion for the reliability of an ERT section, it needs to be shown and discussed.

Fig. 10 is a good example for the missing error discussion. The odd patterns in profile G-EDY-2 at around 450 m (plateau crest) seem to me to be typical for unrealistic patterns which emerge in an ERT section under the influence of high contrasts and pronounced topography.

The section (C) is not very helpful and seems to cover part of (A) - should be left out.

line 814: "highest velocities and lowest ERT values" - shouldn't it say: highest ERT values?

line 851: "Philips et al. indicate...": WHERE did they find 6000 yr old ice? In the study area? Somewhere completely different?

line 860: "accelerating in the north" - what does this mean?  Rephrase

line 866 ff: "can accelerate into the future"

Consider looking at the many publications of Kellerer-Pirklbauer on rock glaciers in the Austrian Alps. Temporary acceleration due to warming of the ice in rock glaciers is quite common, and might be followed by a stop of any movement once the ice has actually melted. This should not be mixed with the behaviour of rock slopes where ice melt can lead to acceleration or collapse.

line 870: Again, rock glacier and rock slope are mixed here. Keep this apart!

line 886: "Increased displacements rates are associated with lower ground temperatures and higher ground resistivity...": This sentence is somewhat misleading. Lower ground temperatures well below zero would probably reduce displacement rates. That's what happened during the Holocene. The velocity increase at lower temperatures at Gámanjunni is due to the fact that areas of subzero temperatures move faster than areas of above-zero temperatures, because there is still ice that can warm up, deform and finally melt. Once the ice has melted, the temperature-displacement relation will probably disappear or reverse.

line 887: Here you give the corresponding explanation to line 886. Make it clearer in the previous sentence that acceleration occurs around the freezing point.

line 893: "The movement mechanism seems to be different for both systems..." (rockslide  / rockglacier) 

Of course it is different! These are two totally different types of landforms with totally different dynamics.

Typos:

line 252: significantly

line 427: "Cumulative velocities" should be "cumulative displacement"

line 436: purple bares 

line 569: considerably

line 605: full stop missing

line 798 and in other places: Kääb!

line 850: delete "a" and the two blanks before

line 881: demonstrate

line 898: full stop missing