Dear Dr. Armstrong,

Thank you very much for your response addressing the concerns of the reviewers. I invite you to please upload a revised version of the manuscript for additional assessment.

Best regards,

Sean Carey

Dear Dr. Armstrong,

Thanks you for your revised submission. The manuscript will undergo further review and and you will hear back if further revisions are required in short order.

Best regards,

Sean Carey
McMaster University

Dear Dr. Armstrong,

I have reviewed your paper and consulted with one of the referees and have the following comments that I would like addressed before the manuscript is suitable for publication.

The comments from the reviewer are: Most of the issues I flagged in the review have been addressed, however the authors are still sort of liberal in their assumptions. Although they state there is no spatial correlation in their variables (yet never show how they determine this), I think it would be useful to show the relationship between albedo and surface temperature. A >15degC variation in surface temperature and a constant ground heat flux makes me suspicious of their assumption that Rn variability is directly proportional to L_up. The error from this assumption is probably much less than the total error they report, so not worth making major revisions about, but it is likely to be spatially significant. It would have been nice if they included this in their new discussion about the uncertainties in the modelling since it could be a useful area of future analysis.

A few sections could still be cleared up. The example in section 4.4. seems arbitrary. Some variables are discussed the full range and others they pick random subsets. In section 4.5 (pg 12 ln 21) the authors discuss a result never presented to the reader (when Rn > 400 Wm-2). The lines on Figure 7 look like they are forced through the origin, but they don’t describe what they are in the caption. Figure 12’s x-scales are stretched out for the net radiation and evaporation subplots. I think they are meant to be comparable, but the authors never compare them directly. There are a number of typos still, an extra ‘and’ (Ln 29 pg. 11), Figure 3 is referenced before Figure 2, there is a missing ‘)’ (Ln 31 pg. 7), and figures are referenced as both ‘Figure X’ and ‘Fig. X’ without any consistency.

At this time, I would like you to please revise the manuscript considering the above comments.

Best regards,

Sean Carey
McMaster University

Dear Dr. Armstrong,

Thank you for taking the time to address the additional small issues. I have reviewed and believe that the paper is now suitable for publication.

Best regards,

Sean Carey
McMaster University