The manuscript proposes a simple, but ad hoc and poorly physically justified, approach to modification of the ice strength in a popular sea ice rheology scheme. The purpose of this is to create a low-computational cost way to better simulate some of the scaling properties of deformation. It is interesting, though not especially surprising (as the authors note), that this enables capture of some of these scaling relations with such a simple treatment.

I am sympathy with the general approach taken and there is much in this paper that is of value. The ad hoc approach is obviously not ideal and raises important concerns over appropriate choice of timescales, but then the rheology that is being modified is also exceedingly ad hoc and has been in use for over 40 years. Clearly the authors are aiming for a no-cost, practical approach that can be easily implemented into existing modelling architectures.

Nonetheless, one of the reviewers raised very important points that must be taken into account. Particularly damage refers to reduction of the elasticity, not plastic ice strength. As an Editor, I view it as my job to prevent the propagation of terms that are likely to cause confusion and are at odds with existing and mature bodies of work. As a result, I will not accept this paper if the word damage is used in its current form.

If the authors wish to proceed with revisions then careful account should be taken of all the comments by the reviewers, with particularly full responses given if a recommendation is not followed. But I reiterate that an alternative language must be found to express the reduction in ice strength and the word damage removed from the paper and title. The obvious term that springs to my mind is plastic weakening, which is what I believe it actually is.