|I appreciate the work that has been done on this revision. The layer splitting and merging scheme is now much better described and makes sense (end of p. 4 to middle of p. 6). The big Table 1, even though it might feel excessive, makes sure that everything has its proper definition and units. I still have some comments, mostly minor, and will recommend publication contingent on minor revision, even though I feel like I still haven’t sufficiently combed the equations for inconsistencies.|
Some things that I still consider somewhat major:
1. P. 5, 1st paragraph: This starts to explain the split/merge scheme, and refers to Fig. 1, which doesn’t show layers at all. You might want to add a separate figure that schematically shows a split and a merge. Fig. 1 can also benefit from having sensible heat flux included. So you’ll want to reference the current Fig. 1 for the processes that lead to splitting and merging, and another figure (or panel) for the split/merge scheme itself.
2. The paragraph on p. 8, lines 9-13 is a rather good example of a brief description of the general concept that the following sub-sub-sections will fill in. Other sections should have more like this.
3. Eqs. 37 and 38 are some that I decided to take a fairly close look at. In eq. 37, it seems to have the correct units, but the only thing in the equation that is suggestive of a wave number is the K-H billow length, which only has a single value, and other terms don’t even have that. The “per wave number” part of the definition suggests that you might be able to do an integral across wave numbers to get a value per mass, but I’m not seeing how this works. In eq. 38, the units don’t work out right. The part inside the brackets seems to have the right units (meters squared per second squared), but then is multiplied by a length.
4. Table 1 should have an explanation in the header that says that a hyphen in the units column means no units. This made me ask myself what a hyphen in the value column means, and I don’t think it is all that consistent. Some are distinctly independent variables (t and z). Some indicate the space-time location of a feature of the system (such as t sub b and H). To what extent might these be characterized as calculated? [t] seems to be more of a device used in coding the algorithm. E sub TKE and E sub PE seem more clearly to be calculated. U sub 10 seems to be time-series input (observed). e sub * is altogether undefined in the table. E sub PE seems like it should be defined as potential energy within the stratified water column *per mass*, but see the previous comment about eq. 38.
5. Fig. 10: The inset should have a better 3-D effect. Consult an expert to add color and sheen so that it is unambiguous which direction each surface points. I don’t understand why alpha sub inf is called a “half angle”. It’s the angle between the two sloping sides of the idealized river channel, right?
1. P. 3, lines 12-14: I hesitate to call FLake a 1-D model. Maybe more like 0.5-D, because of its predefined shapes of temperature profile curves.
2. P. 3, line 26: It would be more convincing that GLEON is a large group if you explicitly state a number of participants.
3. P. 6, line 3: This sentence seems very confusing. When you say energy, to you mean heat energy, TKE, or something else? Density instability promotes mixing, so it doesn’t make sense to overcome instability to trigger mixing. And “accounting for” can be taken as either a cause or an effect; I’d rather see it expressed more explicitly as an effect of mixing.
4. Hyphen police: See my previous comments. P. 6, line 19: “Well mixed” is an adverb + adjective, so should not have a hyphen. Captions to Figs. 2 and 5: “Time series” should have no hyphen. P. 14, line 2: “Length scale” without a hyphen.
5. P. 6, line 27: The word “latent” should be before “heat flux”.
6. Eqs. 5 and 6: It seems that you are defining the water level as the level of liquid water if no ice were displacing it, while ice thickness is simply ice volume/area. In other words, when freezing occurs, water is withdrawn from the top layer of liquid water and transferred to the ice layer. This needs to be very explicit in order to understand these equations.
7. P 8, line 10: “Uppermost” should be one word.
8. P. 8, line 13: I don’t think you’ve defined “RHS”. Some might know this, but perhaps not all.
9. P. 10, eq. 13: Is zenith-angle dependence already built into the definition of incoming light? Otherwise direct sunlight should have this formula with z divided by the cosine of the zenith angle, and diffuse light should use some effective average zenith angle.
10. P. 10, line 11: “Adsorption” refers to material being incorporated; for radiation, it should be “absorption”.
11. P. 12, line 9: Add “water vapour” before “mixing ratio”.
12. The journal's spelling standard apparently is British English, and this manuscript mostly follows that, but I noticed at least one occurrence of “vapor” on p. 16, line 2.
13. P. 12, eq. 23b: Is there a citation for August-Roche-Magnus?
14. P. 13, line 4: I’m not sure whether “within the internal boundary layer” implies that you need to define an internal boundary-layer height and measure at multiple heights within that range, or whether it only needs to be measured near the surface.
15. P. 15, last line: “Penetrative” misspelled.
16. P. 20, line 12: The formula at the beginning of this line should be multiplied by g.
17. P. 23, line 11: There should be a semi-colon before “however”.
18. P. 25, line 9: Phi sub inf should be the angle of slope. I think this is better than just saying “slope” which is often expressed as a ratio, and I think “tangent” here is unintentional.
19. The citation and the reference give different dates for Makler-Pick et al.
20. Mueller et al. (2016) is out of alphabetical order.
21. Snortheim et al. is missing a date.
22. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) needs to be alphabetized according to the way that it is stated in the citations. It is not alphabetized correctly for either “TVA” or “Tennessee Valley Authority”. I suggest leaving the citations as they are and alphabetizing it as “TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)”.