Dear Liv,

many thanks for your response to the reviewer's comments.
Please, go ahead with preparing a revised manuscript
addressing the referees' comments as suggested in your replies.
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Best regards, Joachim Segschneider

Dear Siv Lauvset,

I have now received the reviewers reports on the revised version of your paper. As you will find,
one reviewer has still a small problem with the calculation of the available light for the off-line
calculations. It would be ideal if you could rerun the off-line calculations following the
reviewers suggestion, and check if/how much this changes your conclusions.

In addition, I have a few additional suggestions:

in Eq. 1, N_0 is not defined

ln 169 insert 'mean' after 'zonal'

ln 172 emissions 'of'

ln 173 I suggest to put 'accumulation mode' in quotes
or add the diameter in parenthesis as not many readers of BG might be familiar with the term
also: ...emissions...'were' increased

ln 174 allowing 'for' the full interactive cycle
(or 'allowing the simulation of' the full...)

ln 200 global mean SST 'is' projected

ln 213 oxygen is not a physical variable...
perhaps 'physically driven, such as surface oxygen' is meant?

ln 223 the spatial 'distribution of' the absolute change in SST...

ln 226-228 I'm a bit puzzled how one can see the 'changes in spatial patterns'
in the zonal means figure. Perhaps this can be clarified.

ln 300 All RM 'experiments' (not methods) also exhibit...

ln 314/315 I suggest to change the sentence to
...it takes less than five years for ocean NPP to decrease to RCP8.5 levels.

ln 346 ...upwelling regions (add 's')

ln 690 Journal of 'C'limate