In this manuscript, the authors produce a purportedly new dataset whose novel contribution is the addition of two-moment cloud microphysics to couple aerosols to classical reanalysis data. This type of research is quite valuable in that it adds another approach for example to cross-check and validate other data (e.g., data from GCMs). This manuscript is full of promise, but unfortunately it falls short.

The dataset is not available yet; the methodology to reproduce it isn’t really clear; no code is offered to reproduce anything; the exact contribution of GiOcean in the context of other modeling details is unclear; the “one-way coupled” nature of GiOcean isn’t really defined; and the comparison to satellite data shows that GiOcean is quite far off.

I hope the authors find my comments below constructive. I will be happy to review this manuscript again, and I am looking forward to it being ready/suitable for publication.

Overall, this manuscript is difficult to read and disappointing. Potential avenues for improvement include:

• The manuscript feels rushed and several issues could be improved (in terms of writing, quality of presentation, precision of definitions, etc.)
• Depending on how tedious it is to redo the reanalysis (i.e., reproduce GiOcean), I’d very strongly encourage the authors to “tune” the processes that you assess to be “too strong” (your words), including precipitation suppression (L 341, 358, 372, 420), dependencies on sources (L 327, 234, 400, 420; how does this relate to activation btw?), dependencies on sinks (L 337, 234, 400, 420)
• Relatedly, could you provide correlations plots (a la Figures 5 and 6) of AOD vs Nd and Nd vs LWP? That is, make AOD the x-axis and Nd the y-axis in one and in the other make Nd the x-axis and LWP the y-axis. 
• How are these processes (droplet activation, droplet/aerosol removal, and precipitation suppression) represented in the microphysics scheme in this study?

More comments:

L 1: not to be too pedantic, but aerosols affect the atmosphere radiation everywhere in the column they exist, and they in fact almost never exist in “top of the atmosphere” (that layer of often thought to be empty) — you probably forgot to add “balance” between radiation and through.

L 2: “Adjustments” are part of aerosol–cloud interaction (as you correctly define them on L14). Please rephrase to clarify what you mean here.

L 3: remove “our”

L 18: in the sentence just before this, you defined ACI as both Twomey and adjustments, but not you’re saying ACI *and* adjustments as if they were two separate things.

L 22: Maybe cite a few of these “numerous researchers” here?

L 35: This sentence can be deleted (it’s readily implied by the one before it)

L 33–52: this entire paragraph is pretty awkward and a little haphazard. For example, the word “therefore” appears multiple times (almost every other sentence). And some assertions are pretty questionable. I would simplify and just say, very basically and succinctly, what you want to say (which is likely something about how a two-moment scheme gets you some info about ACI in GCMs)

L 93: you never really get around defining what you mean by “one-way coupled” — please define and be explicit somewhere.

L 93: also, could you explain the “time lag” part? What’s its impact? Can it be made shorter?

Section 2.1: After reading this multiple times, I am still confused about the setup. You’re describing one thing after another, without really actually making connections between paragraphs (and sometimes even sentences).

L 109: you say GiOcean is a dataset, but it sounds more like a model if it simulates somethings?

Section 2.1: I read this section a few times and I am still unsure how this whole thing works and more impotently what *new* thing you added to this the whole setup? You say earlier the microphysics part is the new part; was there microphysics in before? Did you invent the whole workflow from scratch? It’s just not clear to me what you did and how you did it, and what’s new about it. Please carefully explain the details.

L 138: I’d prefer you keep a present tense (especially that you do in fact use mostly present tense throughout)

Section 3.1 and Figures 1 and 2: Consider adding difference plots between GiOcean reanalysis and satellite observations (i.e., take difference between 2nd and 1st column into a 3rd column for Figure 1)

Figures 1 and 2: I would probably encourage you to use the same scaling (you used linear in Figure 1ab, but you used logarithmic in Figure 2a)

L 192: “enhance this disagreement” — do you mean exacerbate it or ameliorate it?

L 250: you say you develop a steady-state model (you also say that in the abstract) but I actually don’t think you do? Or am I missing something?

Section 3.3: I am not entirely sure what these “models” are and how they were used in this context?? Maybe “models” is the wrong word to use in this context? I am confused! Maybe you mean “look-up tables” as you sometimes refer to these relationships later? Either way, please state precisely what you mean and how you went about producing the corresponding results.

Section 3.2: I think “explained variance” should be defined clearly before it is used in the text

Data availability: Is it appropriate to ask for the underlying code/processing to be shared too? It’d be good if the authors think it is shareable.

Data availability: Because the dataset isn’t available yet, it is hard to recommend this manuscript for publication.