Dear Jim and co-authors,

I have now completed my reading of your revised manuscript in the light
of the two referees' comments and the short comments. I see that you have
made very comprehensive replies to all of the comments. Thank you.
Thank you also for the detailed and clear "Author's response".
I very much appreciate the careful preparation of that document.

I am pleased to inform you that I accept your manuscript for publication
subject to technical corrections.

I have spotted a few minor things. In the following, the line numbers refer
to the version of the manuscript from the "authors' response" file. The
line numbers in the final manuscript are not usable from page 12 onwards --
not sure what happened there (perhaps one extra LaTeXing would help?).


p. 5, l. 6: "earth system models" is capitalized everywhere else. Do not
forget that you have defined "ESM" before ...

p. 5, l. 13: the "2" in CO2 to be set as index

p. 6, l. 2: "initialilzed" should read "initialized"

p. 13, l. 29: please discard "in permil" as the salinity on the PSS-78 is
a dimensionless number (see e.g., UNESCO Technical Paper in Marine Science 45,
The International System of Units (SI) in Oceanography, 1985)

In the references (throughout): long dashes in DOIs make the DOIs invalid
(they cannot be used in DOI resolvers such as http://dx.doi.org). Long dashes
must be replaced by normal ones, and then the resolvers work fine.

p. 29, l. 24: the "2" in CO2 to be set as index

During the access review stage, you agreed to add the old OCMIP2 documents as
supplementary material with the final revised manuscript. I have not found any
supplement in the submitted document. Perhaps you have changed your mind.
For readers convenience, I would still be pleased to have those reference
documents bundled with this paper. An alternative would be to add dedicated
links to the OMIP-BGC web page, that will hopefully accept connections soon.


Best regards,

Guy Munhoven