Dear authors,

your paper can now almost be published. I suggest, however, to check and correct a few issues, before publication.

1) page 6, line 7: "opposite sign ... compensates the fluxes..."? Do you mean "opposite sign ... compensates flux errors/biases..."? Please check!

2) To my understanding you want to know whether the step from std-res to hi-res leads to improvements in CRE results. If this observation is correct, you should avoid statements like that on page 19, line 32: "... a significant improvement ... in the std-res simulations ...". What you have instead is that the transition from std-res to hi-res leads to a significant degradation in this case. There might be similar sentences at other locations in the paper. Please keep always the direction from std-res to hi-res in mind in order to make reading not even more tedious. So if the hi-res results are better, there is an improvement, but if the hi-res results are worse, there is a degradation.

3) Page 28, line 23-25: I wonder about the speculation here. "This suggests... vary strongly among the models. ... can ... be different". This speculation is not necessary. The modellers in the author team should know whether there are differences among the models. So please reformulate this in a affirmative fashion.