Dear Dr Peylin,
Thanks for submitting your revised manuscript. In reviewing your responses, especially reviewer #4, you have provided strong rebuttals to the reviewer, however, you have not made any substantial changes to the manuscript to clarify the various points raised by the reviewer.
I ask that you and your co-authors please re-consider All the reviewer comments (not just RC4), and make sure enough changes are made to the manuscript to clarify the criticisms made the reviewers, rather than only address this in your reply. This will help future readers of the manuscript who may have similar questions. For example, i would expect to see a few sentences in your introduction, which explains how your work further builds on the Rayner, Knorr and Wang papers, as per your rebuttal.
Regards,
Jatin

Thanks for addressing the comments and making more substantial changes to the manuscript. Unlike the first 3 reviewers, RC4 was not convinced that your paper makes enough of a contribution to warrant publication in GMD. Having reviewed all the comments and your replies, i think that this paper does indeed make a contribution worth publishing, and hence, I am happy to accept the revised manuscript for final publication in GMD.
In reviewing your manuscript, i noticed a few minor corrections which should be made:
Provide a version number for ORCHIDEE in the abstract please.
You use way too many UN-necessary acronyms in the abstract, for no particular reason. The CCDAS and GCP acronyms are defined, but only used once? Why do you define in acronym in an abstract if you only use it once? The LMDz acronym is used without even being defined?
The Rayner et al 2005 paper has no journal in the reference list?
I believe the Raoult et al paper how now been accepted in GMD, you should used the GMD and not GMDD reference.
Double check all your refs please.
Cheers,
Jatin