Dear Authors,
I have read the three independent referee reviews of your manuscript and, although there have been significant revisions, the current format does not adhere to the guidelines provided for authors. Please look at the instructions provided and follow the manuscript composition guidelines. To address these issues a revision is required in order to allow the manuscript to be published. In that the new document contains no line numbers makes commenting difficult. Please submit your revised manuscript with line numbers.

Abstract: The abstract needs to be re-written removing redundant information concerning the history of the model development. Please only include details related to version 7.2 i.e. what has been updated in this version compared to that in previous publications. Also summarise the improvements compared to previous versions using the examples which are included in Sect.3. This should agree somewhat with the conclusions section.
Section 1 should be simply entitled “Introduction”. At the end of introduction there should be a paragraph to lead the readers into the manuscript. Please refer to example papers previously published in GMD.
Section 3: Remove the bullet points and convert details into a paragraph.
Section 4 needs to be split into (4) Further Discussion and (5) Conclusions. Remove the bullet points and convey details in normal text.
The website https://hirlam.org.trac/wiki is currently available when I tried. Please replace the reference with something in the literature which is readily accessible. Refer to the author guidelines regarding the use of webpages in publications.
Specific comments: Please pay attention to adopting correct English grammer in order to avoid extensive modifications which will be imposed before going to print.
“First attempts of … “ → “First attempts at …”
“For climate applications the …”

Dear authors,

I have read your revised submission and feel that the document is now more in line with the guidelines for authors related to GMD submission.
There is still one outstanding issue with the conclusions section related to how the content is spilt between the new Further Discussion and Conclusions sections. The conclusions should read as an entirely independent summary of the entire paper, thus abbreviations defined in the manuscript cannot be used. Therefore as a final action, please merge the first paragraph of the further discussion section into the conclusions. I am looking for a lead sentence such as e.g. "In this manuscript we have provided a comprehensive description of the Enviro-HIRLAM model ... ", currently found in the Further Discussion section. One important thing is that you cannot use other peoples findings in your own conclusions unless your have conducted similar independent simulations only available in this manuscript. Therefore, previous findings that chemistry is/isn't important for applications should be moved to the Further discussion section if based on the findings of previous studies. In the conclusions section you can add something about previous applications e.g. "Highlighting a number of previous investigations we show that Enviro-HIRLAM has already been used for a host of different applications ranging from pollen forecasting to Numerical Weather Prediction."

Best regards,

Jason Williams.