This manuscript was read by two anonymous reviewers as well as an online commenter (Dr. Du). R1 is generally positive but suggests that the text would benefit from a great focus on mechanisms behind the reported results. R2 also finds value here, but is concerned that about imprecision in the terminology; lack of context (e.g. climate data); and that both the introduction and discussion are somewhat superficial (matching R1’s comment re mechanisms). R2 also provides many extremely useful and thoughtful line-by-line comments and questions. Finally, commenter Du echoes R2’s concerns about lack of contextual data, but is generally positive. The authors generally provide good initial responses to these concerns.

I have read the ms and broadly agree with the reviewers and commenter. Simultaneous observations of multiple GHGs remain rare, and there are many points of interest here; the methodology is sound and figures nicely done. My own concerns center around (i) better contextualizing the results, as above; (ii) availability of data and analytical code must be specified, and ideally deposited in a permanent public repository (whoops never mind I see the Zenodo link—thank you); and (iii) discussion is quite inadequate (and should not re-state results in lines 152-164).

In summary, this is a promising study but needs significant revisions in a number of areas. Please carefully consider and respond to all the reviewer, commenter, and editorial comments in your revised version.

Thanks for your careful responses to the reviewers, and revisions throughout the manuscript. Both reviewers agree that it has been significantly improved, and R1 thinks it is acceptable for publication.

R2 however still has many concerns, noting inconsistencies in the text, unclear methodological points, and other issues. Please consider these carefully and provide responses. Note that some are stylistic (and thus optional), while others identify potentially serious issues (e.g. ambiguity about measurement frequency). A few suggest additional analyses but in general I do not think this will be required.

This manuscript was re-read by the reviewers, and both find it significantly improved. I agree—thanks for your careful revisions, which have dramatically improved the clarity of the text and strengthened the overall study.

There do remain a few changes that could be made to further clarify and improve the text; these are all optional, but I strongly recommend them. See short list below. Regardless, I am pleased to recommend this ms for acceptance.

Minor comments
1. Line 14: Be concise, i.e. “The annual mean…” (no need for “Our results indicated that”)
2. L. 101-104: for clarity, would be good to start new paragraph with “In this study, we… [describe in a single sentence].” Then “we hypothesized that Re, CH4 update, and N2O emissions would be simulated by warming, but gradually attenuated…”
3. L. 104-107: could remove
4. L. 187: start new paragraph
5. L. 206: “Re exhibited exponential growth”
6. L. 212: “were not”
7. L. 216: see #1 above, same comment here (also in line 267)
8. L. 241: “In this study, warming increased…”
9. L. 292: what about availability of analysis code? Please include in Zenodo!