|I believed the author has addressed most of the comments raised in the first round of review. Overall, I think the conclusions are clearer and more convincing. I have some additional suggestions/comments that I think would help improve the manuscript.|
1. I suggest adding uncertainties in the mean spectral power and spectral slope estimates and/or carrying out hypothesis testing to determine if the difference seen in these mean spectral powers (and spectral slope) are statistically different.
2. Line 5: remove ‘eventually’ from the phrase ‘eventually the global mean surface temperature’.
3. Line 9: I appreciate that you tried to be more explicit about the implications of the study in the abstract and discussion. But I’m not super satisfied with the abstract part. I guess what I’m thinking is it would be great to highlight the implications of this study (mesoscale variability is important to multidecadal variability) on studies that use CMIP class models in the abstract.
4. Lines 46-57: I appreciate the addition of this paragraph to clarify the relationship between these climate modes, SHF, OHC, and GMST. However, how this paragraph is currently written is a bit awkward. Since the majority of the introduction section is about the SST modes, I would reorganize the paragraph a bit, such that it focuses on how representation of SST patterns affects our quantification of SHF, OHC, and GMST, instead of how it is currently written – how the latter three metrics are related to SST.
5. Lines 92-93: I would change ‘In idealized non-eddying ocean models, modes of multidecadal variability exist that depend critically on the prescribed eddy diffusivity’ to ‘In idealized non-eddying ocean models, the existence of modes of multidecadal variability depends critically on the prescribed eddy diffusivity’.
6. At some point in the intro, it might be worth mentioning what is the spatial scale of mesoscale just to highlight why 1 deg models do not resolve mesoscale.
7. Line 121-123: I would also add Chang et al. (2020), where they did a longer simulation and supplemented it with extremely detailed analyses.
8. Line 141: For the sake of completeness, maybe it’s worth to test the sensitivity of your results with other SST products also (e.g., ERSST, COBE)?
9. Line 208: Out of curiosity, why is the HR-CESM is interpolated to specifically 0.4deg rectangular grid?
10. Line 222: ‘(Fig. (Fig. 2d)’ should be ‘Fig. 2d’.
11. Line 222-223: This statement is a bit confusing – it is implying that there is a causal relationship between the previous sentence and this sentence, but in reality, the larger amplitude in observed low-pass filtered PDO compared to models *does not* imply there is a larger proportion of spectral power >13 years. Please clarify.
12. Line 268: The correct reference for MacDonald 2005 should be MacDonald and Case 2005. Apologies for providing the incorrect reference in the previous review.