I would like to thank the authors for addressing the majority of my concerns, particularly for reducing the number of runs and for adding experiments 3 and 9. I only have two minor concerns, once these have been addressed I will be happy to recommend the paper for publication in GMD.
1) On page 1, lines 14 to 19: The authors still state that deriving the surface temperature of a planet "is a conceptually simple physics problem". As I said in my previous report, this is not true, and the authors do not need to say this to motivate their intercomparison project. To motivate their study the authors should rather argue that performing accurate radiative transfer calculations is the number one priority in any climate model.
2) I am concerned that radiation schemes designed for anoxic atmospheres may not be able to participate in most of these experiments. To avoid adding more experiments, I suggest that O2 and O3 could be removed from experiments 3 and 9. I believe this would both broaden and ease participation in these experiments, but I will leave the final decision on this to the authors.
Typos:
Table 1, experiment 16: Should describe adding an ice cloud, not a liquid cloud
Page 2, line 5: "may made" -> "may have been/be made"
Page 3, line 3: "hope it that" -> "hope is that"
Page 3, line 24: "do perform" -> "to perform"
Page 4, Line 3: "This based" -> "This is based"
Page 4, line 5: "levels are the" -> "levels as the"
Page 4, line 27: "There a range" -> "There is a range"
Page 13. line 19: Sixteen experiments, not fourteen |