on tc-2022-3

The introduction includes an extensive review of previous snow model intercomparisons, but these are all for seasonal snow with a focus on snowmelt and runoff, and are not very relevant for this paper. If going into this level of detail, however, uncertainty in model outputs due to uncertainty in meteorological driving data should also be mentioned https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/19/3153/2015/hess-19-3153-2015.html

The introduction includes an extensive review of previous snow model intercomparisons, but these are all for seasonal snow with a focus on snowmelt and runoff, and are not very relevant for this paper. If going into this level of detail, however, uncertainty in model outputs due to uncertainty in meteorological driving data should also be mentioned https://hess.copernicus.org /articles/19/3153/2015/hess-19-3153-2015.html 15 The abstract should acknowledge that the intercomparison is for a single site on the Antarctic Plateau

22
Can it be said that the surface temperature errors are consistent with the magnitude of sensible heat fluxes being too great both day and night? 27 This is a standard way to start a snow modelling paper, but snow is not a water resource at Dome C (and it isn't a key element of the landscape -it is the landscape!). The snow cover does not vary considerably in time and space. "snow patterns" suggest spatial distribution of snow cover, which is not considered in Schlosser et al. (2000).

88
There are two sites in Etchevers et al. (2004).

133
"that that water may freeze" 150 The information in Table 1 is already provided in the text and the author list; it could be deleted.

154
All of the information in this sentence is repeated with more detail in the following sentences.

173
Rather than a list in the text, layer depths might be better presented in a table, which could then include the initial temperature and density profiles. How was initial temperature prescribed for single-layer models?

174
The sensitivity tests mentioned here are XP0 and XP1, not additional test deemed relevant by the participants?

179
No need for equations 1 and 2 to be bracketed with { 196 This is the only mention of calibration. It is important to know if some of the models have been calibrated for these simulations, and how.

205
The K&Z CM22 does not just measure visible radiation (and, in the Figure 1 caption, not just direct solar radiation). Could say when the temperature probes were installed.

Figure 2
Why are temperatures shown as not filled at four depths? Table 3 The caption should explain the use of square brackets. 316 I assume this is not a linear profile between the surface and 10 m depth.

Figure 5
Adding air temperature to this figure would be an interesting comparison.

341
The PDFs in Figure 6 have too many extrema to be cubic functions. Were they, in fact, fitted with cubic splines? 389 What does "a root mean square error that varies from simple to double" mean?

391
The more sophisticated model do not have to represent the evolution of albedo in XP0, as I understand it.

400
Wind speed is always greater than or equal to zero, so taking its modulus does not add anything.

401
The proportionality constant is not simply the surface exchange coefficient; air density, and heat capacity for sensible heat flux, are also required.

417
Assumed overestimation of sensible heat fluxes in stable conditions is a longstanding feature of models, although it can prevent larger biases in surface temperature. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/10/6/1520-0442_1997_010_1273_votse b_2.0.co_2.xml 430 Equation 5 is how Qh is measured and equation 6 is how it is modelled.

442
This is the bulk Richardson number, not the gradient Richardson number. I would have guessed that GDPS and CLM4 are singled out because they characterize stability by the Obukhov length, but that is the case for JULES also.

464
The vertical temperature profile is well initialized by construction.