Please find my review attached below. 

Title: Assessing glaciogenic seeding impacts in Australia’s Snowy Mountains: an ensemble modeling approach 

Authors: Chen et al.   

The manuscript examines nine seeding cases using an ensemble modeling approach. The ensemble is composed of 18 members using different large-scale forcing data, planetary boundary layer schemes, ice nucleation and aerosol schemes. The nine cases investigated are divided into those with convective and stratiform precipitation. The authors found that depending on the precipitation regime, the seeding impacted the precipitation differently. The manuscript is novel, well-structured and well-written. I have no major comments. Minor comments are given below.

Minor comments:

1. Line 8: define BARRA
2. Line 9: define PBL
3. Line 19: the degree Celsius symbol should not be in italics.
4. Line 130: It is confusing to have a sentence starting with “one of our goal…” in the ensemble design. Is this the goal of the study? The authors should rephrase the sentence for clarity.
5. Line 154: Add a space between “)” and “to”.
6. Line 247: The authors describe the figures in the text, which is not necessary. For example, the authors can delete “see color circles” because it is already in the figure caption. The authors should correct throughout the manuscript.
7. Line 272: The units “gigalitres” is not needed since that it appears in the figure caption.
8. Lines 297-321: This paragraph is long and is mixing results and discussion. The authors should divide it in a few paragraphs, based on the topic. For example, lines 297-300 read more like a discussion about the processes associated with the downwind shift while the sentence starting with “Furthermore” on line 300 seemed to be some results another numerical noise.
9. Lines 347-348: The first sentence is incomplete and unclear and should be improved.
10. Line 377: In the sentence starting with “The abundant supercooled liquid…”, “supercooled liquid” should be replaced by the acronym “SLW”.
11. Line 423: What does “negative seeding” mean?
12. Line 426: Should “rimed water” be replaced by “SLW”?
13. Line 440: Which numerical study are you referring to? It should clarify.
14. Conclusion: The authors should divide clearly the conclusion of the study and the future work. For example, the last paragraph (Line 452) reads as future work and should probably be combined with the previous one.