To the authors,

I'd appreciate a final set of comments from you - ideally that relate to final manuscript edits - on the last reviewer's final reviews, prior to publishing. My main resistance to publishing immediately is that the last reviewer lean towards 'publish' but also is frankly still uncomfortable with what they perceive as 'releasing' a model that still contains deficiencies that more or less preclude it from it's intended usage (as I interpret their comments).

Perhaps your final comments to myself and within the manuscript could clearly address the scope in which your model is applicable, and which scope in which it is not? For example, the reviewer suggests model is not suitable for usage in determining snow thickness during late spring/summer. In general, a GMD paper should very honestly list the model caveats and related usage limitations. These are ultimately intended to provide 'cover' to the model developers, so that blame for user over-use/over-interpretation doesn't fall back to the developers.