+++ %MJK The line just before 2.3.1 can now be deleted
+++ %MJK Further, $\overline{\FF}_{\rm K}=\overline{\FF}_{\rm M}=\bm 0$, that is, the forcings are pure fluctuations.
%MR: But now the statement \mean{F_{K,M}}=0 is somehow scattered. Shouldn't we say it once and for all at the earliest
%    possible moment, that is when the mean is introduced?
%MJK If you want! I do not see a need for it.


p. 8, left col.. [l. 2: "exceeds the corresponding fluctuations in α" [How would we compare?]
                 %MJK We discussed this already before. It IS a bit questionable to compare magnitudes
                 %MJK of alphas to etas, but now we at least compare normalized values, which should bear
                 %MJK some significance. The point here is that alpha fluctuations should be zero, and 
                 %MJK hence mark the "noise" level, and that is why it is important to say that the eta
                 %MJK values exceed the noise level. We do have the error bars, of course, but I would
                 %MJK still think it is good to mention this.
%MR: Can't we compare \alpha and \eta k_z?
%MJK This we also discussed in length [the normalization of alpha_rms and eta_rms in the tables].
%MJK Now it is far too late to change this.
%MJK We have more rigorous comparison with the 0D model then, and most, if not all, conclusions are
%MJK anyways based on those.
%MJK I would leave it.

                            [l. 6: "α values are similar or a bit larger, and clearly exceed the η_yx component" How to compare?]
                            %MJK See my comment above. Now important to say from the perspective that eta_yx is very small.
			    %MJK See my comment above.
         

p. 14: right col., [l. 3: m=2 self explaining?] %MJK I would think so. Make a suggestion how to improve!
       %MR: A suggestion is not so easy. That's why I asked. If we agree that it is self-explaining we leave it as it is.
       %MJK We leave it then?
       %MR: Perhaps we ask Axel.

p. 15: Table 4: don't inflate to full width
       [Run SKM1a007 not explained]
       %MJK It is, indeed, missing from Table 2. I wonder why. This would be a question to Javier, but we will not get an answer, unfortunately.
       %MJK I will try to search for the data, but I think it is bad to start adding entries to the data table at proofs. We should maybe
       %MJK explain it off otherwise. It is obviously a run very close to 008 and 006 that are in the table.
       %MJK Found the data and could compute the numbers with the 'ju' method
SKM1a007 & $-$0.649      &2.077$\pm$0.025   &2.051$\pm$0.007   &0.120$\pm$0.018 &$-$0.177$\pm$0.024 &0.091$\pm$0.027         &0.173$\pm$0.068 \\%SMK1a007 in Puhti
       %MJK Do we want to add this or not at proofs?
       %MR: Perhaps not in a Table, but somehow describing the run would be good.
       %MJK It is not included in the plots, hence I would leave it out from the table... I cannot remember why it was not included in the plots...
       %MJK irritating... Maybe I could still add it to Fig. 4... I will keep thinking about this...
MR: A proposal for this:
p. 15, left col., l. 2: "Run SKM1a007" -> "the representative Run SKM1a007"
       Table 4: add "Notes: Standard forcing with $\kf/k_1=5$, $\ShK=-0.649$, $\Pm=1$, ${\cal A} = 1$, $\Rm = ...$." 
       %MJK I now added it to the Table 2. I will try to add the data point to Figure 4 as well, as we have now the opportunity to replace those figures.


%MJK The rest concerns with Matthias appendix.

       App. 4, l. 4: "and assume" -> ", assume"
       Eq. (C1): sizes of left and right bracket pairs () and < > don't match
                 more space between \tau and I  (2 times)
                 put (C1) on first line

p. 16, left col., (C3): too long, bracket sizes don't match
                  l. 1: y_0 -> y
                  l. 3: "\rho_0 \mu_0" -> "\rho"; [...] -> (...)
                  l. 4: first 0 should be bold
                  (C5)-(C6):  align first + and - on each line
                              number each line 
                              because of that: 
                              below (C7): "the second contribution in (C5)" -> "(C6)"
                                          "by parts in (C6)" -> "by parts in (C7)"
                              right col.: "(C6) and (C7)" -> "(C7) -- (C9)"
                                          "the first term in (C5)" -> "(C5)"
    
       right col., in 2.: insert "-effect" behind MSC
                          no indentation before (