deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Line_by_Line_comments__.tex b/section_Line_by_Line_comments__.tex  index 82d9c55..9e735f4 100644  --- a/section_Line_by_Line_comments__.tex  +++ b/section_Line_by_Line_comments__.tex 
...
\item[P4010, L12] I think this needs either further explanation or a reference.  \item[P4010, L15] Capitalisation of Future  \item[P4010, L16] I agree with you about the importance of understanding future, but this wasn't mentioned as an objective for PlioMIP1 in the list earlier.  \item[P4010, L16] The "Pliocene for Future" and "Pliocene for Pliocene" terms are dropped in here without much explanation.  \item[P4010, L24] I think should have a reference for this example. Perhaps \cite{Rowley_2013}?  \item[P4011, Sect 2.] Don't feel afraid to refer to later sections of the manuscript where relevant.  \item[P4011, L8] half's -> halves  \item[P4011, L9] should -> would (?)  \item[P4011, L13] I think it would help if you explicitly described the Eoi$^{400}$ simulation as the core experiment before descending into the Tier 1 and Tier 2 ones.  \item[P4012, L4] You may want to state that the Eoi$^{450}$ runs fits in the P4P section too.  \item[P4012, L4] Perhaps you could explicitly state the concept of CO$_2$ equivalency here.   \item[P4013] Is there a reason to shift from `preferred' and `alternate' names used in PlioMIP1?  \item[P4013, L4] The discussion of the standard LSM seems contrary to the discussion in sect 2.3.2  \item[P4013, L20] Add `equilibrated' or some such word before `coupled'. Clearly the RCP and Historical runs are not 500 years long in CMIP. Also drop `see' before Taylor reference.  \item[P4014, L9] I find it surprising that there isn't any mention of the fact that PlioMIP1 used 405 ppm. Is there a particular reason for the change?  \item[P4014, L20] Note that Fran Bragg's PhD thesis suggested that the 405 ppm was too much Methane/NO$_2$ equivalency for the 380$\pm$25 ppm.  \item[P4014, L29] I suggest putting the KM5c subclause in brackets with a reference to maintain the flow of the sentence.  item[P4015, L9] Please refer to figure 3 somewhere. This seems the most appropriate place.  \item[P4015, L15] Please my comment on the topography above. This sentence is insufficient to justify the new boundary conditions by itself.  \item[P4015, L17] Surely altering the Bering Strait is a change in the Land-Sea mask. If modelling groups have the ability to do this change (and in my experience making new land is more awkward than new ocean), then shouldn't they be doing the other experiment. Incidentally, I would anticipate that this change is important for the AMOC, so worth including.  \item[P4018, L3] Is `predict' the best choice of word here?  \item[P4019, L18] I was unsure why you have selected this river routing approach? In CESM this specification may require much more effort than formally deriving the new river routes from the Pliocene topography. Perhaps you could provide some justification for this choice.  \item[P4020-1] See comment on simulations above  \item[P4021, L20] the brackets around LR04 should be combined with the reference, which confusingly is actually 2005.  \item[P4022, L3] The `et al' is missing after Fedorov.  \item[P4022, L8] You may want to mention that several of the regions of discord already have existing high resolution datasets appropriate for this work.  \item[P4022, L10] Is it necessary to state that this community effort will run alongside the modelling effort. This would make it clear that there aren't any citations ready yet, but this manuscript won't the main paper describing them.  \item[P4022, L16] tense of `require'  \item[P4022, L20] perhaps you could add `although CMOR compliant data is preferred' at the end of the sentence: at least from a user's perspective.  \item[P4022, L25] Is it wise to give some contact details for access to the data repository explicitly.  \item[Table 3] Can you make the CORE experiments stand out a bit better. Either with \\textbf{} or by putting them to the top. The captions states this has already happened, but I can't see it.  \item[Figure 2] I found it hard to read the text on this image. Please increase the resolution. You may also want to get it to conform with the experiment terminology used in the paper.  \item[Figure 3] It is hard to see the regions highlighted. Perhaps lay out as top/bottom instead of left/right to increase the image size.  \item[Figure 5] Perhaps increase the caption of this figure. It's hard to compare to modern at the moment. You could be more explicit about seeing the modern distribution and anomalies in \cite{Pound_2014}.  \item[Figure 7] This images feels like it is missing a lot of context. Perhaps expand the caption and include some citations to papers with more information.  \end{description}