Dear Authors,

Referee 1 has made the following comments:

The revised manuscript is a significant improvement and materially addresses the computational science issues in the previous submission. In particular, I was able to build and run the model (though I concede I have not rerun the data analysis). The remaining technical issue which needs to be fixed is an apparent typo in kepsilon_IdealizedCase.par . This file refers to Forcing_period9.dat4, which is not one of the provided files. From the response, I see that this probably should have been 1 or 24 rather than 9. I also note that the authors have elected not to include the verification in the manuscript. This is defensible in the terms that they have given in the response, however only stating it in the response to reviewers is a little too obscure. I suggest that they document the verification in the git archive (and hence on Zenodo), then add a comment to the manuscript simply indicating that verification was performed, with further details given in the archive.

Please address the outstanding technical issues and edit the manuscript accordingly, at which stage we should be able to accept for publication.

Best Regards,
Bob Marsh