I like this paper. The authors have done a great job at giving a walk through on exactly what is going on in a way that is easy to understand. It goes through each method nicely with no real assumptions made that might make the reader confused.

Major Comments:

None

Minor Commentss:

Line 19 - A comma after "However" is probably needed here.

Line 59 - A comma after "In addition" is probably right here

Line 59:60 - "that has been developed over thousands of person years" sounds really odd to me.

Section 3.1:

a) What is the timestep size? I am guessing it's 0.01 (?), but I think it should be noted.

b) Why did you not observe z? I am curious about why this choice was made instead of observing all variables. 

c) Why choose x=5 and y=20 to be your observation frequencies?

d) Why retain 5%? I know you said it's to avoid divergence, do you have a citation for this or was it tested by you?

Points b-c are just me curious about why the choices were made. I don't think more experiments are needed, but maybe add something to give context to why you decided on these parameters. Could be easy like refering to papers whose setup you are using, or just a small sentence here and there.

Line 183 - I like L=40 is good here, how general do you think that is?

Line 198 - What do you mean by "true RMSE" here? I don't understand what these dotted blue/green uncertainty estimates are in agreement with.

Line 252 - Say what "i" refers to. 

Line 286 - "Fig. 2, reflecting the improved assimilation approaches." Is this supposed to be a stand alone sentence? It feels like something is missing to make it a complete sentence.

please see the attached RC files.

Please refer to the attached pdf file.