I disagree with almost all Rainer Feistel's answers to my Comments, and the next sections of the PDF are point-by-point Replies to the Reply of Rainer Feistel.

My aim will not to continue a too long exchange with Rainer Feistel, who will likely refuse to offer any other definition of his (equivalent) proxy values for the moist-air and seawater entropies. Nonetheless, my aim is to clearly show to the Editor (and to young and future generations reading the preprint and my Comment and Reply to Rainer Feistel) that the reference values have real impact on many kinds.

Moreover, since Rainer Feistel admits that vertical profiles, vertical sections and entropy diagrams are influenced by these arbitrary choices of reference entropies, he should at least offer as a possibility the calculations of the absolute moist-air and seawater entropies.

I want to recall that it is easy to add simple extra terms for computing draft versions of both the atmospheric and seawater absolute entropies and the liquid-water proxy value from the standard (TEOS10, equivalent) proxy formulations. However, it would be worthwhile redoing the TEOS10 settings/tunings without making arbitrary assumptions while imposing the absolute values of the reference entropies, going beyond the additional terms that I indicate and which are likely of the first order (especially for the ocean).

I recall in the Section 2 that the saturation-pressure relationship (1) derived by Nernst (1918), Planck (1921), Nernst (1921) and Nernst (1926) depends on the absolute value of the entropy for monatomic gases (used to set the translational part of the statistical entropy for all other polyatomic bodies). The same absolute entropies of bodies are also used to determine the equilibrium constants of all chemical reactions, which in turn determine the (measurable) concentrations of O3 in the atmosphere and sea salts in the seawater, and therefore impact the vertical profile of the (measurable) temperature in the stratosphere, in particular.

I explain in the Section 3 that the constants arbitrarily specified by the 5th (1956) International Conference on Properties of Steam are unclear, presently unavailable, not reproduced elsewhere, and looks like a mere old-fashioned and arbitrary gentlemen agreement.

I explains in the Section 4 that the relativistic reference values have no impact on the computations of absolute values for the thermal energies and entropies (merely describing the variation of translational, rotational and vibrational degrees of freedom for atoms and molecules), simply because present atmospheric and oceanic NWP models and GCMs are not designed to describe the thermodynamic impacts and physical processes of nuclear bombs or nuclear reactors in nuclear plants.

I explain in the Section 5 that there is no large uncertainty in the properties of H2O Ice-Ih, with in particular the residual entropy at 0K needed to make the Calorimetric and the Statistical methods coincide. I show in the Fig.1 the values of the specific heat at constant pressure (cp) plotted as a function of the absolute temperature from 0K to T=273.15K, with the numerical values listed in the Table-2. It is with these numerical values that I have plotted the calorimetric curve in the Fig.2, which show that the Statistical method and the Calorimetric method (including the residual entropy for Ice-Ih H2O) lead to the same results for N2, O2, Ar, CO2 and H2O. If the uncertainty in the properties of Ice-Ih below 100K was as important as suggested by Rainer Feistel, it would have been impossible to get the good agreement between the Statistical and Calorimetric methods (including the residual entropy at 0K).

Moreover I show in the Section 6 unpublished zonal sections (Figs.4), unpublished entropy changes at the Mauna Loa laboratory (Figs.5), and unpublished Climate Change of entropies from NWP models, GCMs, Reanalyses and GIEC simulations (Figs.6). All these unpublished results clearly show that the behaviour of the absolute version of the moist-air entropy is special and cannot be confused with other `equivalent' versions of the `entropies', which often produce results with opposite physical behaviour (vertical gradients and changes with time of different magnitudes, or even opposite signs).

I similarly show in the Section 7 that not only the surface of constant entropy (as shown in another example of zonal section in the Fig.9), but also the isentropic trajectories, depend on the choice of the reference values. This was in particular the aim of the study of H2O plumes (pathways) studied by Adriana Bailey (NCAR). I have shown with Adriana (see the Fig.7 and Fig.8) that these H2O plumes preferentially follow the surface of absolute moist-air entropy, with clear difference with the other arbitrary-reference definitions like the equivalent-proxy one computed by the TEOS10 software (these differences are large in the moist and warmer boundary layers and within the Tropics).

I recall in the Section 8 that the reference values of the energy must have an impact on the computations of the value and flux of the moist-air energy, as already explained by Gibbs (1875-1878), as shown and recalled in the Fig.10.

I explain in the Section 8.1 that the entropyflux of -1.0 W/m2/K mentioned in the preprint and suggested first by Ebeling-Feistel (1982) and then retained as such in Feistel-Ebeling (2011), as shown in the Figs.11, is underestimated: it is more likely of about -1.18 to -1.28 W/m2/K. Rainer Feistel should update this value.

I show in the Section 8.2 how the reference values of the moist-air entropy (20) must impact most of the terms in the moist-air (absolute) entropy equation (19), including the turbulent fluxes of the moist-air (absolute) entropy, but with the notable exception of the current version of the moist-air (absolute) entropy production term.

I recall in the Section 8.3 that the turbulence are presently based in all NWP models and GCMs on flux-gradients relationships of the Betts (1973) variables, which must be generalized to the use of the moist-air absolute entropy itself, or even the associated moist-air absolute entropy potential temperature (according to Richardson, 1919, 1922). As a matter of fact, these turbulent terms are not managed by Rainer Feistel, nor the (absolute) entropy flux, nor the temporal change in (absolute) entropy. This may be of a certain importance for several results shown in the preprint, and with a link with a questions asked by Trevor McDougall (RC1) about the Fig. A.16.1 of the TEOS-10 Manual and the `non-conservative production of entropy'. Rainer Feistel should more clearly explain which kind of moist-air (absolute) entropy equation he consider, and which terms are evaluated versus those discarded? In particular, I show in the Figs.12 that it is needed to use the absolute moist-air variable (or the associated potential temperature) to arrive at the properties mentioned in the preprint by Rainer Feistel and the need to have turbulent `fluxes proportional to its driving force' (in that fully justifying the suggestions of Richardson, 1919a,b, 1922, to use the absolute value of the moist-air entropy).

In the Section 9 I include some remaining developments to better explain why Rainer Feistel is wrong when he wrote that: `Measurable thermodynamic properties in geophysics must be independent of the choice of those conditions, otherwise those quantities are physically improperly specified.' In particular I recalled that the need to define absolute reference entropies is related to the definition of the absolute scale of temperature (Fig.13) and to the principle of unattainability of the absolute zero of the temperature (Fig.14).

All Figures are placed in the last Section 10, located before the references.