This paper presents an analysis of the diabatic heating and moistening rates associated with a marine cold air outbreak (MCAO) that occurred on April 1, 2022 during the HALO-(AC)³ campaign. A goal of the measurements, as summarized in this manuscript, was to quantify the thermodynamic and cloud evolution of air parcels initially over sea ice that were transported over ice-free ocean during an MCAO. I agree with the authors that to my knowledge, they are the first to report the vertically-resolved diabatic heat and moistening rates for parcels in response to a MCAO. The manuscript provides these new results by combining the data collected during HALO-(AC)³ with a large number of parcel trajectory calculations to determine which parcels were likely sampled twice and at what time interval. This enables the authors to provide a picture of the evolution of the thermodynamic and cloud properties for these parcels at a range of time intervals after the parcels crossed the MIZ. Additionally, the authors compare the observational results with ERA5 and CARRA reanalysis outputs to assess errors finding that CARRA tends to outperform ERA5 in this case. The study concludes that future studies of MCAO studies would provide better results if CARRA was used. One criticism is that I found the cloud discussion within the paper lacking and gave me a feeling that it was added at the end. The cloud results warrant further consideration. Overall, the paper is well written, technically sounds, and interesting. I my assessment this paper should be accepted after minor revisions.

Major Comments:

-The only major comment is the need for a more thorough presentation and discussion of the errors in the measurements and analysis throughout the manuscript. The authors do a nice job performing analysis that tests the impact of assumptions and uncertainties (e.g., performing trajectory analysis with both ERA5 and CARRA). However, the uncertainties are not given in a quantified manner. The uncertainty in the surface turbulent fluxes determined using the bulk formula and the differences using ERA5 and CARRA for trajectory analysis in terms of spatial differences (parcel trajectories where 3 km different at 4 hours) would help the readers assess the confidence in the results.

Minor Comments:

-line 145: “137 model levels” doesn’t provide the vertical resolution? Please state the vertical resolution in the boundary layer for ERA5, as this will influence the model representation.

-line 157: same comment on CARRA vertical model levels

-line 178: I suggest changing the word “hints” to “indicates” or “suggests.”

-Line 186-188: I’m very happy to see that you analyzed the influence of ERA5 and CARRA reanalysis on the trajectories.

-Line 245-255: It seems that the statement “The sharper MIZ of CARRA in comparison to ERA5 is not only and issue of spatial resolution…” is not completed. I’m left confused as to what the difference is. The sea ice data set used for ERA5 is discussed but no sea ice data for CARRA is described here. Please clarify what the source of the difference in the MIZ sharpness between CARRA and ERA5.

-Line 272-276: Are the MAEs in ABL temperature and specific humidity pressure-weighted?

-Line 311: What is meant by “weigh matches by their frequency of occurrence”?

-Line 348: A 200 Wm^-2 sensible heat flux strikes me as a bit high and was unexpected. It is certainly substantial. Can you influence the surface-air temperature difference that goes along with this flux and provide an uncertainty estimate for the SSHF and SLHF values? These values are included in the appendix figure (A6) and it would be good to reference specific values within the text to provide the reader additional context.

-Line 378: “This might indicate that some leads are already frozen over…” I’m confused by this statement since the bulk formula used in the calculations doesn’t include information on the lead fraction. The bulk formula used only have a surface-air specific humidity difference. Thus, the formulation used wouldn’t have a direct sensitivity to lead fraction (e.g., different transfer coefficient over ice and ice-free ocean. If this is the case, this statement would be incorrect. Please explain/revise.