I find the manuscript improved with just a few minor issues remaining. They are:
L134-139: Turbulence theory: I realise this text has been changed in response to other referee comments, but I believe there is still a certain lack of accuracy in the statement as written now. Triad interactions in 2D turbulence are explicitly defined as the interactions of three waves with wavenumbers k1 = k2+k3. So they are wave- wave interactions of a finite number of distinct waves (three of them). And if k1,k2,k3 are small numbers, they are wave-wave interactions of a finite number of distinct large waves. So the statement in the manuscript saying the authors concentrate on these interactions “rather than [...] 2-D turbulence)” is not accurate. Please clarify.
L 216: “SSWs are defined as a subset of the identified SSDs”. How do these SSWs compare to the classical Charlton & Polvani (2007) SSWs? Are all SSDs which also reverse zonal flow CP07 SSWs? What about the other way round? It would be good to have a statement here to get a feeling of how similar the here discussed SSWs are to the CP07 SSWs.
L 224-225: This change after my previous comments is not satisfying, as it still suggests there are no models were k=1 forcing does produce SSWs. So, why not make this statement much simpler (and more accurate), by saying “.., however our model does not exhibit SSWs when forced with k=1 forcing (Table 1 in Sheshadri et al., 2015).”
L229-270: I got very confused about 10-day running means here. You say you first smooth the data with a 10-day running mean (L 229), then you apply a 10-day smoothing before compositing (L 251), and then you smooth the data with a 10-day running mean before plotting (L 270). How many times, exactly, do you apply a 10- day running mean until you get to the final, plotted results? If it’s more than once, why is this necessary?
L522, 523: Instead of just referring to Fig 6b,e and 7b,e, it would be much clearer if you could discuss the physical quantity and add the figure information to the discussion, maybe in parentheses. |

Based on the positive assessments of both reviewers and their recommendations, I am pleased to accept your paper for publication pending minor revisions. Note that both reviewers have provided a few minor, but important, comments/suggestions. I ask that you carefully address these comments to finalize the manuscript.

Thank you for submitting your work to Weather and Climate Dynamics.

Sincerely,

Pedram Hassanzadeh