Top slip contributors to OED: 1. Thomas Austin Jnr. 165,061 slips over 10 years (45.22 notes per day) 2. William Douglas 151,982 over 22 years (18.92 notes per day) 3. Thomas Nadauld Brushfield 70,277 over 28 years (1.98 notes per day) 4. William Chester Minor 62,720 slips over 23 years (to 1906) (7.5 notes per day)

upon minor differences by men of science and belief in their strenuous search for the completest truth and the exactest expression sometimes gives color to this sort of misunderstanding.

This emphasis on minor differences is exactly what many anti-science critics have done. See examples with respect to evolution and climate science denial.

https://www.dropbox.com/home/public%20files%20-%20do%20not%20delete?preview=Nettles%2C+Granf+-+1997+-+The+Chord+Scale+Theory+%26+Jazz+Harmony.pdf

The Chord-Scale Theory and Jazz Harmomny Netles & Graf 1997 (not searchable)

blues progressions - p 101

What do we see here? Why would he get it again?

it's punchy, but what does it mean? be more specific.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLV4EDBtuas

Quotes I've made that I never expected to be excerpted... 🤣

Perry analogizes many people's experience of writing to passing a kidney stone and then contrasts it with me talking about the Mozart composing/cow peeing analogy.

Turkey at this time were heavily influenced by Persian tradition and embraced the Islamic faith. They were once a nomadic horde that expanded into Persia then Byzantine Empire. Becoming the dominate force in Anatolia.

seems

Can you justify the use of such different values for horizontal eddy viscosity and eddy diffusivity? As far as i Know the turbulent Prandtl number, defined as the ratio between eddy viscosity and eddy diffusivity should be close to 1.

In both figure S1 and S2 there are no red or blue lines. adding these colors as written in the text would let the plots more readable

The Oregon State Tidal Prediction model should provide also the barotropic velocity components due to tides. Why didn't you use also these variables as boundary conditions?

This sentence should be revised. Neglecting waves lead to significant errors in which variables? all or only some of them? This work clearly shows that waves can influence the hydrodynamic in some areas of the bay, especially in the outer basin and near inlet 2, but I think that a conclusion that neglecting waves can lead to significant errors should be supported by comparison of the model output with some observations (sea level, u ,v , Temp and Salt) that demonstrates the benefits of including waves in the simulation. I suggest to modify the sentence or to add some statistical index quantifying the improvement of the simulation with waves compared with the one without waves. This also is connected to the sentence in the conclusion at line 606

plot f) of the radiation stress gradients is missing

It is straightforward from figures title but the a, b and c references of the figures are missing. As in line 206 the C of Celsius degree is missing in the temperature plot.

What is the reference period of wave and wind data shown here? Is it the same period of the model simulations? Is the percentage shown representing the percentage of time in which those conditions are present considering the entire observation time? I suggest to add these information in the text.

I can't see the dashed blue line in figure 1a

This is the same caption of figure 3. It must be changed with wave height and Direction.

Same issue of figure 3. the letter references in the plot are missing

The correlation can be negative. It ranges from -1 (anti-correlation) to 0 (no correlation) up to 1 (total correlation). I suggest to correct the definitions.

Can you explain me this sentence? Trade winds may explain the E or NE direction of the wind. Looking also at the spreading of the wind in the W-NW directions in figure 1e and at the positioning of the cost, it seems that W-NW wind direction could be attributed to breeze.

Are you talking of bays in general or only Spanish bays? I don't know, maybe most of the Spanish bays have a negligible contribution from freshwater? However there are places where the freshwater contribution in lagoon is very common, e.g. many lagoons discharging in the Baltic sea (Curonian lagoon, Vistula lagoon, ...). Can you be more specific?

C in Celsius degree is missing

Do you mean "than"?

I think here you want to refer to fig. 4b1 isn't it?

R squared is the determination coefficient, that is the squared value of the correlation coefficient and is different from the definition given before (line 238-239). What is the actual value of table 1?

The C of Celsius degree is missing

The common definition of RMSE for the term between brackets is Model output minus Observation. This however does not affect the result

The definition of the numerical grid is not totally clear. There are no clear correspondences between figure 1a and the highlighted test. The cell size 20x20 is the one in B or C of figure 1a? and why there is no grid in the creeks in figure 1a? How is defined the grid in the outer domain (A in figure 1a)? Is it the same of B?

I think it is better to use SI units.

Smedsrud et al. (2017) point to the fact that the AO - Fram Strait export correlation is non-stationary in time. The results presented here are in line with what Smedsrud et al. report for the 21st century. Yet, I am curious about the earlier period, do you see any correlation between drift and AO in earlier periods of the FESOM simulations?

I find this section very convincing!

One additional suggestion, still. What do the sea ice area export curves look like in the FESOM simulations? I am assuming that if you were to look at area export (function of ice drift and ice concentration), you would get a similar picture to Fig. 3c - i.e.: slightly positive trends, with the variability almost entirely explained by winds. Is it possible to show that (additional panel in Fig. 3)? I believe it would bring yet an another argument supporting that the long term trend in volume export has to be thickness driven.

I would like to see just a little bit more detail as to why PIOMAS shows no trend. Selyuzhenok et al. (2020) report that the systematic error in PIOMAS (smoothed difference between thick and thin ice) might play an important role in this discrepancy. Do you have any other insight as to why the Selyuzhenok et al. PIOMAS trends stand out compared to the other?

Same comment here. At Fram Strait - average thickness across Fram Strait is implied?

Remove 'the', unless there is a missing word following Greenland?

I find the introduction very clear and well structured.

I would consider including a word on Fram Strait sea ice area export (which is reported to be increasing (Smedsrud et al. 2017)), which would help set a contrast with volume export, which is decreasing. 'sea ice export' is used to describe area or volume export, depending on the paper. Although it is perfectly clear through the manuscript that we refer to volume export, a short note on area export in Fram Strait could be of interest for readers.

I don't understand this part of the sentence. What does 'both the SLP gradients' mean? Was it meant to refer to the mode that better describe the thickness variability and the sea ice drift variability?

This is in line with the findings of Williams et al. (2016) Fig. 3, who demonstrate co-variability between sea ice area export in the Eurasian sector and sea ice area export in the Fram Strait, and further show the correlation with the AO index.

typo

I understand this is the sea ice drift averaged across Fam Strait? Furthermore - is this the component of the drift perpendicular to the Fram Strait gate? I think these details are important to precise in-text.

Why not calculate correlations with SLP over land? There might be some interesting connections when thinking about high pressure systems above Greenland?

Can you provide more information as to how the winds induce sea ice thickness variability in the Fram Strait (in the wind_vari setup)? In the following paragraph you make the case for convergence of sea ice causing an increase in thickness. Could other mechanisms, such as advection of thicker ice from regions with typically thicker ice, due to a change in the atmospheric forcing pattern - also be at play?

I do not see the correlation between ice thickness and drift reported anywhere?

This is the annual mean anomaly with respect to the 1992-2014 mean, is that correct? Maybe precise this in the legend.

Please precise the definition of the Fram Strait used for producing the results. Is it a line of constant latitude (82°N)? Or a straight line between Greenland and Svalbard?

The Fram Strait gate could also be illustrated on the map of averaged thickness and sea ice drift I suggested above.

In Fig. 2b - the observations are the Cryosat-2 thicknesses, correct?

I understand that CMST assimilates sea ice thickness from Cryosat-2. Therefore, why is there such an important discrepancy in the ice thickness in Fram Strait between CMST and the observations?

More precision on how FESOM simulates sea ice should be included. Are there any know biases?

Also, I think a useful additional figure would be a map of averaged thickness and sea ice drift over the 2001-2019 period for the control run (a figure similar to Fig. 1a in Min et al. (2019)).

My comment above applies here - a map of averaged ice thickness and sea ice drift over the 2001-2019 period would be very useful in supporting this point.

How is that being handled? Are the fields replaced by their climatology above a certain latitude (60°?), or is there a finer definition of an Arctic Ocean domain?

Also are certain criterions imposed for continuity in the climatology/dynamic-fields transition zones?

What does the sea ice model use as an Ice Thickness Distribution (ITD)? ITDs will influence the representation of ice thickness in the model, and since ice thickness is of major importance in this study, I believe this is useful information.

I would find it interesting to have little bit more information here, on the changes in thickness reported by Hansen et al. 2013 and Renner et al. 2014. - i.e.: very briefly report on the change in modal thickness, or % change over recent decades.

What is being referred to as a long time scale? Decadal? Multi-decadal?

data

...in the chosen...

...VDFs. However...

...QTN, only...

...that for...

(k*lambda sub D)^-2 not required due to no real parts at large k? If so might want to mention in paragraph.

introduces

plane, we

remove "however,"

It may be useful to also include a 'no radiation" case in Fig 1, to show both how the presence (and absence) of radiation affects the timing of cyclogenesis, as well as for clear comparison with previous studies (e.g., Melhauzer and Zhang 2014).

One major take-away from this work is that the outflow-layer circulation (daytime circulation) is sensitive to the concentration of ice, and therefore the model microphysics. How sensitive are these results to the chosen microphysics scheme? I do not suggest that the authors perform such sensitivity calculations for this study, but I do think this is an important aspect to consider (similar to the discussion of domain size in lines 367-374).

Are these simulates computed for a constant Julian day? If so, I would suggest stating that here for clarity and for possible reproduction of the work. If not, how might temporal variations in solar zenith angle affect the results for these long simulations? For example, after 90 days of integration, how might the change in incoming radiation affect the results?

With a stretched vertical grid, what is the resolution near the outflow layer in the simulated TC? How might this resolution affect the magnitude of the vertical circulation (w') at this level (e.g., Fig. 2a.-b.)?

Suggest elaborating on "such mechanisms" for better understanding. For example, explicitly stating that "understanding this offset phasing in TCs" is critical.

Add "the" after of

Suggest rewording of this phrase to, e.g., "that has long been considered in the literature."

Dear authors, editors and readers,

It is to mention that the expression "Evidence-Informed Practice" is far from being recent. Glasziou used it in 2005 with reference to a previous paper by Schriger, published in 2000, 16 years ago (although Glasziou made a mistake: the paper was not published in 1993).

Here are the references : Glasziou, P. (2005). Evidence based medicine: does it make a difference? British Medical Journal, 330(7482), 92.doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7482.92-a Schriger, D. L. (2000). One is the loneliest number: Be skeptical of evidence summaries based on limited literature reviews. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 36(5), 517–519. doi.org/10.1067/mem.2000.110997

All the best,

Nicolas K.

To nitpick: you can still get an estimate of a causal effect without randomization (or adjustment), but it's likely to be a lousy estimate (unless particular assumptions are met).

Remove space

Remove space

Add a space.

Consider rephrasing. I understand what you mean here, but a perfect urinal is indeed an ugly readymade.

The period is missing from "etc." In general, I tend to prefer "and so on" or "and so forth" instead of "etc."

You use the word "transition" a lot in the first few sentences. I'd consider replacing this word with "change" or "switch" (or something similar).

principal

more cheaply

starting to interact

comes

distinct

Should be "A"