Dear authors

both reviewers are not overly enthusiastic. The ratings are not such that I can accept the manuscript in its present form.
Both reviews contain a list with things that are still not understood by the reviewers. Similarly I also find your language hard to understand.
In order to turn the manuscript in an acceptable state, substantial effort must be invested, clearly more effort than in the last round.

1. consider all reviewer comments
2. Add an additional case study to make your findings more robust such that it is more justifiable to generalize your interpretations
3. in particular, check the language. GMD offers copy-editing to improve the English language. However, it is the duty of the authors to come up with clear descriptions that can be understood by fellow researchers.

The "brevity argument" should not be used during the next revision round. As reviewer 2 nicely says: brevity "should not come at the expense of poor elaboration on the results.."

Kind regards,
Simon Unterstrasser

Dear Jean-Pierre

I went over the manuscript and find the content of the manuscript acceptable.
I appreciate the addition of the second test case.
Nevertheless, the language has to be improved. I add a PDF document with my recommendations.
Some recommendations I made only once and I expect that you correct similar mistakes in other places as well.
It would have been good if a native speaker had checked your newly added sections. To me tt does not seem that this part has been checked.
Nevertheless, most of my comments do not refer to simple language mistakes, but to unclear formulations. I expect that you carefully check your formulations. You are a group of three authors who can go through the manuscript and spot possible unclear formulations.
In the next round it will be necessary that you put some effort in that direction. It is not the Editors duty to spot all such formulations.

Best wishes,
Simon

Dear authors

I noted in my last comment that I will not list all places where improvements are required.
Unfortunately, there are still awkward phrases that have to be fixed.

"The domain simulation was 180 x 180 .."

In section 4.3 I propose: "This is in contrast with the 1 mm contour line of cloud ice thickness, for which the enclosed area increases ..."

Again, I think it is not done by just fixing those examples that I bring to your attention.

Best wishes,
Simon

Dear authors

I am happy to accept the manuscript and greatly appreciate the language-related improvements of the last round.

Best wishes,
Simon Unterstrasser