Dear Authors:
Thank you for your detailed response to the Reviewers' comments and the careful revision of your manuscript. I find the revision significantly improved the manuscript. Before accepting it for publication, I am asking the Reviewers (especially Rev. 2) for their evaluation.

Two minor comments:
l.17, l.27 - As for the alternative interpretation proposed by Rev. 2 - do you disagree? Please clarify in your response to next round of review and consider commenting on this if helpful in manuscript, perhaps as a footnote?

l.35 = As Rev. 1 pointed out, and you acknowledge in your response, there is a slight increase in energy stored int he atmosphere due to global warming. I understand your argument (that you also incorporated into a later section of the revised manuscript) that the increase is very small. Nevertheless, the statement on l.35 is not strictly correct. Do you think qualifying this statement, either in main text or in a footnote here, may be necessary?

I am looking forward to your response after you receive comments from the second round of review(s). Regards
Zoltan Toth

Dear Authors:
Thank you for your patience. We now have Referee #2's second review. In her/his confidential comments to the editor, the Referee still questions if your paper has relevance for the journal and whether it contains new results but is now acquiescing to its publication to allow further discussions.

Based on the reviews I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication in NPG subject to two minor editorial corrections (see below). I believe your original approach may prompt further studies and discussions. To facilitate publication, please submit a revised version of your manuscript. Congratulations, and hope you will consider NPG for publishing your future studies
Zoltan Toth

Minor editorial corrections noted by Referee 2:
Line 44: 'energy outgoing flux' -> 'outgoing energy flux'
Line 49: 'same thing that the old K-H time scale.' -> 'same thing as the old K-H time scale.'