Dear Dr. McGuffin,

Thank you for the careful response and revisions to your manuscript. Please note the technical corrections requested from the reviewers, as indicated below.

Best,
Christina

p9, lines 25-27: Referee #1 asked about the justification for these ranges of rates spanning expected atmospherically relevant process rates. I believe that what the referee intended was not a reason why atmospherically relevant ranges are useful, but instead references to indicate that the ranges of rates used here are representative of the ranges of these process rates in the atmosphere. Whether or not I am correct about Referee #1’s intent, the authors should include references or other justification for their choices in the tested ranges of the three process rates.

p11, line 21: Please replace “a statistical significance in the variance” with “a statistically significant difference in the normalized variance”.

Figure 3 caption: Please replace “unlikely to find” with “unlikely to be found” or “unlikely to be observed”.

The only remaining caveat would be regarding the usage of dampen on pages 7-13 and 11-3. The authors are correct that both terms are found in common usage, however it should be noted that from a technical perspective the use of "damp" rather than "dampen" is well established in control theory and harmonic analysis. I leave it to the editor to determine if such usage is acceptable for this journal.