Lucas et al. present an interesting study in which they use Langevin particle modelling applied to realistic LES outputs to investigate the importance of the emission spreading rate of sprayers (ships) for Twomey forcing. They further examine the influence of variability in aerosol properties, including the number of sprayers and their motion type, aerosol decay timescales and age, concentration bins, and background aerosol concentrations, as well as meteorological conditions. Their results show that the velocity and type of sprayer motion have little influence on Twomey forcing. Assuming that cloud adjustments are relatively small, they further demonstrate that the effect of the spreading rate on Twomey forcing is limited, with the forcing being strongly controlled by aerosol lifetime. Their findings suggest that the common assumption in GCMs of an infinitely fast spreading rate could result in a 10–200% overestimation of Twomey forcing. Overall, I found the manuscript to be well written, and the methodology to be sound. I have only a few minor comments that can be addressed easily by the authors.

Minor comments:

1. Line 43: Goren et al. (2025) also attributed the co-variability to two factors: (1) large-scale meteorological conditions, which influence cloud properties such as cloud liquid water path (LWP) and cloud droplet number concentration (Nd), causing these variables to covary simultaneously and inversely; and (2) microphysical processes associated with cloud development, during which an increase in LWP is generally accompanied by a decrease in Nd.

Goren et al. (2025): Co-variability drives the inverted-V sensitivity between liquid water path and droplet concentrations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 3413–3423. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3413-2025  

2. Line 45: By constraining cloud morphology using MODIS observations, Goren et al. (2026) reported contrasting results, finding that LWP adjustments nearly offset the Twomey forcing.

Goren et al (2026): Beyond discrete stratocumulus regimes: a ternary continuum of morphology reveals within-regime variability in cloud susceptibilities, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 7193–7206. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-7193-2026  

3. Line 75–76: Are there any references demonstrating that these 17 LES simulations are in close agreement with the observations. Or the term “observations” is used loosely here to represent general shallow marine clouds. Please clarify.

4. Line 76: The abbreviation LPM appears for the first time here without being defined.

5. Line 118: Could the authors also describe how Nd is derived from the CERES measurements? In addition, how is Na computed from the MERRA-2 data? A brief description or an appropriate reference would be sufficient.

6. Line 263: This assumption is inconsistent with Equation (2), where only 80% of aerosol particles, rather than 100%, are assumed to activate as cloud droplets.

7. Line 272: Please define NAc

8. Figure 3: Please define what the top panel in each panel group represents in the figure caption.

9. Line 391 and Figure 10 (also in other instances): Is the twomey forcing calculated for these simulations “global”?

10. Section 4: Could the authors also comment on the role of cloud morphology and cell size on the spreading rate and Twomey forcing relationship?