I would like to thank the authors for making substantial efforts to improve the scientific quality of this re-submission. As noted by the reviewers, the paper offers a clear contribution to the literature and the model description is concise and thorough, which should promote replication of this study and the future application of the model by others.

However, I encourage the authors to make a few minor changes suggested by the reviewers. These include:
1) carry out one final edit to improve the english grammar. As noted by one reviewer, a few examples include:
- on line 69: “exiting” should be “existing”,
- suggest rewording terms “sublimation of blowing snow near surface” to be “sublimation of near-surface blowing snow”

2) Previous referees have commented on this, but the issue remains. There appears to be a numerical stability issue in the model that appears between 2 sec and 10 sec in the calculation of saltating and suspended particles (i.e., as inferred from the noisy / wavy lines in Fig. 5). That error impacts your estimates of sublimation (e.g., Fig. 9). While I don’t think this negatively influences your results, it suggests that there may remain a bug in the model. What is happening in the estimate of entrainment, in that specific time frame, that is causing the noise? If you run the model, say, 1000 times to reproduce Fig 5, and plot the average values of those runs, does the noise still remain? If not, this could point to a numerical solver issue.

3) Figure 2: I am surprised by the very close agreement between the authors’ model estimates of mass concentration and the Pomeroy and Male datum at the lowest height in each panel (i.e., the authors’ model exactly overlaps the left-most red dot in each graph). At all other heights, there is some degree of difference, and that difference varies amongst the three panels. Perhaps I do not understand a key model boundary condition. What is the reason for this near-perfect agreement at the lowest measurement height?

Thanks,

Philip Marsh