Dear authors,

Thank you for the thorough revision based on the two referee reports and the two short comments. In my opinion you addressed the main points of the comments well, and still maintained the type of a “note” that can stimulate more research in this direction. The revised paper is more convincing in particular due to the new analyses on model physics and dynamics, which clarify the different results for different grid resolutions.

Some comments to consider at this point are as follows.

P1/L20: Suggest “most” or “almost all” instead of “all” (e.g. the deep ocean is also very slow).

P1/L24: typo; the r is missing in throughput

P5/L1: Suggest “… the precipitation amount changes …”; you mean amount, right? It would help to distinguish from the precipitation fraction (solid/liquid) discussed in the next sentence.

P5/L28: Please find a different expression for “narrower”, it is imprecise (e.g., less extensive in meridional/zonal direction…).

Start of Section 5: It is a nice idea to single out the points (i) and (ii) and discuss them in more detail below. Would it also make sense to spend a quick word on precipitation in an item (iii)? If not, I would underline in the first paragraph of 5 that you are focusing on the temperature issue.

Table 1: Could you add as final sentence a note on your diffusion unit, since most readers will think of m²/s as the standard unit?

Finally, the title: it reflects the paper content better now, but reads a bit like a review-type article heading. Could you narrow down the implications of the title and bring it more toward a case study indication (what your study is)? This would also be in line with comments during the discussion phase, that some settings of your study are still specific and hard to generalize. Some suggestions are:
The influence of atmospheric model resolution in CAM3 on climate model-forced ice sheet simulations
The influence of atmospheric model resolution in a climate model-forced ice sheet simulation
The influence of atmospheric model resolution on climate model-forced ice sheet simulations: Case study with CAM3
You are free to suggest something else, but it should read less book chapter-like.


Best regards,

Thomas Mölg

Handling Editor &
Co-Editor-In-Chief TC

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for clarifying the minor remarks that I listed in my previous message. I am happy to accept the paper. Congratulations!

I would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their time and thoughtful comments, as well as Irina Rogozhina and Raymond Sellevold for contributing to the discussion.


Best regards,
Thomas

Handling Editor and
Co-Editor-In-Chief TC