These 2 papers can now GO into ACP once the very minors corrections below are inserted.

The 2 reviewers (including me) accept your 2 papers with very minor corrections.
Please address the following points

1/ Check in the first review that there was not an issue with one of the equations. I recall that one of the reviewer had
asked you to change something about the friction velocity (if I recall well) and I did not see it in your changes.
Do you recall such things?

2/ Adress this comment:

2nd round of review of

An improved dust emission model. Part 1: Model description and 1 comparison against measurements
An improved dust emission model. Part 2: Evaluation in the Community Earth System Model, with implications for the use of dust source functions

By Kok et al.

The authors have split up the paper into two parts, addressed the comments of the 2 reviewers satisfactorily, and added an extended evaluation in Part 2. I therefore recommend the 2 papers to be published in ACP.

I only have 1 additional comment that refers to the distinction between the friction velocity and the soil friction velocity that I do not fully grasp or seems inconsistent:

In Part 1 the authors state L145-147: “Equation (5) thus accounts for the effect of wind momentum absorption by non-erodible roughness elements on aeolian transport through the wind stress on the bare soil, as captured by the soil friction velocity u*”.

The authors use fbare, which is the bare soil fraction. However bare soils can be covered by non-erodible roughness elements not related to vegetation, such as clasts, and small-scale topography. For Eq (5) to be correct fbare should be the fraction of bare "erodible" soil. Am I correct? If yes, what are the implications for your model? How would this be calculated?

On the other side, since meteorological and climate models provide the friction velocity and not the soil friction velocity, how should modelers calculate both the soil threshold friction velocity from the soil friction velocity when using your model if the information on roughness length is available?


3/ A few minor edits from me:

Paper 1: reformat lines 538-539
which the bare soil experiences erosion. Eq.
(25) simplifies Eq. (34) in Marticorena and Bergametti (1995) by using a single value of u*t’ for

to

which the bare soil experiences erosion. Eq. (25) simplifies Eq. (34) in Marticorena and
Bergametti (1995) by using a single value of u*t’ for …

Paper 2:

Abstract.
' We hypothesize that this finding explains why many dust cycle simulations are improved by using an empirical dust source function that shifts emissions towards the world’s most erodible regions. ‘
How is your approach not a source function based approach. You might confuse the reader by stating that previous formulations where using a function and you are not.
What do you exactly mean by that?
Please clarify/and change the wording.

Please change ‘Nicholas Huneeus’ to ‘Nicolas Huneeus’

Best,

Yves Balkanski