See comments.

This article presents a novel approach to modeling the spreading of aerosol plumes in a marine boundary layer capped with stratocumulus clouds. The model is inspired from the stochastic processes based approaches used in turbulent flows for representing Lagrangian trajectories. The results presented in this work will be of interest to the marine cloud brightening and ship-track community (broadly speaking - ACI community) and should be considered for publication after the comments listed below are carefully addressed.

Comments:

1. Can you explain the physical meaning behind the terms in the GLM/SLM model?

2. Eq 16, why would the boundary layer flow allow isotropic coeff for the drift term? Is it because you are considering only the horizontal dimensions?

3. In eq 18, are TL and Co constants?

4. What are the overbar terms in Eq 23 and 14? Shouldn't those be zero?

5.  Eq 30, explain how TL and \sigma are obtained?

6. Lines 280-290: Are the surface fluxes identical for all the grid and domain sizes? I am wondering about the differences in LWP/precip. and if they are related to the differences in the surface fluxes? So, is Eq. 32 required?

7. Line 315: the unit of shear is wrong.

8. Section 3.1, the forcing used for obtaining the different shear rates are not clear? Note that other readers should be able to reproduce these results. More details would be useful.

9.  Lines 380-395: I think the figures numbers are wrong. Please check.

10. Lines 402-405: The reasoning is very vague. You need to show that there is some difference in the energy cascade. Can you? 

11. Same for line 406.

12. Line 408: what do you mean by efficiency of dissipation?

13. Line 439: why is sgs diffusivity the relevant parameter? Can't you find an effective diffusivity from the resolved and SGS stresses? That would be the appropriate parameter.

14. Line 448: which part has the superlinear growth? Can you show it in the figure? I dont find any superlinear growth. Can you clarify? And what about numerical diffusion? How do you account for that?

15. How do your growth rates compare against other studies?

16. Fig 10, what about the diffusive model with diffusivity changing with time? And can you plot the diffusive model for each case and not just the control case (maybe in Fig 12). This is required to check if the particle model is actually better.

17. Why is the plume growth rate lower in the night time? Was it seen in other studies as well?

18. Sec 4.2, how is TL for the particle model determined? Is it time varying? I see that Co is from a least sq. fit. Why not make it time varying as well?

19. Lines 474-479: Please show these.

20. The authors have articulated in the article that the particle based estimates are better than the Gaussian-diffusion based estimates. But the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process used here for obtaining the velocity field is a Gaussian diffusive process (i.e., random walk based on a Gaussian distribution). Then why would the two give different results? My impression was that it's a question of having the right effective diffusivity. A discussion related to this would be useful.

21. References: I think the reference to Prabhakaran et al 2024 (ACP) is more relevant than 2023 (JAS).

22. Lines 45-50: Do the other recent LES studies agree with the conclusions of Chun et al 2023?

23. Lines 78-90: parts of this paragraph doesn't seem like introductory text. This could go into abstract or in sec. 4.2. Sec 4.2 would be preferred.