The manuscript has received two reviews and a public comment. All three have commented on the importance of the work and made constructive comments on ways to improve the manuscript. I thank the authors for responding to each of the comments in turn, where they outline how these suggestions could be incorporated into a revised manuscript. I note that the reviewers are very clear that the text gives a clear discussion of the substantial uncertainties associated with the approach which is being tested here. The responses to the reviewers comments indicate that the authors will address those areas where a lack of clarity was present in the submitted manuscript, including some revisions to the graphics.

Both reviewers commented on the length of the Introduction. In the replies, the authors make a strong case for why this information is still required. I agree with both parties. The authors indicate that they will reduce the Introduction by ~20%, which may or may not address the reviewers concerns given the current length of this section (~ 4 pages currently). I suggest that the authors may also wish to consider splitting the text into e.g. a short introduction which lays out the rationale for this study and its approach, followed by a section on polynya formation and impacts? Alternatively, as in the replies to Reviewer 2, consider whether some of this detail may be better placed when evaluating the findings in the Discussion (see response to Reviewer 2 point 1).

Dear authors,
Thank you for your careful and detailed responses to the comment by the two reviewers and myself as Editor. I am satisfied that you have been able to incorporate these comments in your revised manuscript. The changes you have made to the Introduction/Conclusions read very well, and your new graphics provide a clear outline of the tests you performed as well as their outcomes.
Erin McClymont