Dear Drs. Williams, Rampal and Bouillon,

Thank you for your response to the reviewers, and thank you to the reviewers for their time and consideration.



Please proof read the paper. Some specific edits to consider are given below.

Abstract line 8: "too little to induce a very large WRS". This is vague wording, if you can quantify or clarify do.

I suggest you be consistent in your hypenation of sea ice. When it is a compound adjective (as in the title of the paper), you may hypenate. If you do, do so through out the manuscript. e.g. pg 2 line 23 is missing a hypen. Note, it is up to you whether you decide to hyphenate sea ice or not. I do not see a journal policy on this. Just be consistent.

Figure 2 is referenced before Figure 1. You could avoid this by moving the new section 2.3 up in the manuscript. It seams out of place where it is anyway.

Page 12, line 10 (and elsewhere), puctuate e.g..

Page 13, line 1: There is one to many 'to's in this line. Also ration -> ratio

Section 5.1: Should this be in the results section?

Page 17 and elsewhere: Please reference the figures with their number and panel letter. From the instructions for authors:
"The abbreviation "Fig." should be used when it appears in running text and should be followed by a number unless it comes at the beginning of a sentence, e.g.: "The results are depicted in Fig. 5. Figure 9 reveals that..."."
It is unclear which figure you are refering to when you just reference the letters. At least this is the case when reading too quickly!

Page 18, line 1: "solid curves in Fig. ?? are created"

Page 19, line 10: is (42) a missing reference?

Sincerely,
Jenny

Please could you submit your edits and response to the additional reviewer concerns.