I advise the authors to address the comments from Reviewer 2 about the choice of physically meaningful quantities in their analyses, and undertake more detailed efforts in addressing the referee's comments.

Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Based on discussions with one of the reviewers, Dr. Stephen Schwartz, I have outlined the following feedback and suggestions that should be addressed in a revised version of your manuscript. These recommendations aim to improve the clarity and rigor of your analysis and ensure its alignment with established scientific standards.

Feedback and Required Revisions
Removal of the SAME Quantity
After thorough review, I strongly recommend removing the SAME quantity from your manuscript before it can be considered for publication. Detailed analysis by Dr. Schwartz has identified significant concerns with this diagnostic, including:

Its lack of physical meaning; and
Its inability to reliably represent key atmospheric processes, such as SO₂-to-sulfate conversion and sulfur species removal dynamics.

Retaining this quantity risks misrepresenting the underlying processes. Removing it entirely will simplify your analysis and strengthen the scientific foundation of your study.

Specifically, combining gas-phase and particle-phase lifetimes into a single quantity, as introduced by SAME, introduces significant uncertainties, especially concerning the definition of lifetime. For example:
It is unclear whether the lifetime refers to sulfur species at the time of emission ("cohort at birth") or during their presence in the atmosphere ("cohort at any given time").

Furthermore, modeling efforts must fully account for the pathway where SO₂ is oxidized into sulfate, which shifts SO₂ into a separate pool and complicates lifetime calculations.

To address this:
Lifetime calculations should be performed separately for gas-phase sulfur species (e.g., SO₂) and particle-phase sulfur species (e.g., sulfate), based on their respective atmospheric burdens and sink rates.

Avoid combining these lifetimes into a single metric, as it introduces unnecessary complexities without adequately capturing the dynamics of the sulfur cycle.

Introduction of Improved Diagnostics for SO₂ Chemical Conversion
To facilitate more meaningful comparisons between models, consider introducing diagnostic metrics that explicitly represent the chemical oxidation of SO₂ gas into sulfate particles. Future model runs should separate SO₂ oxidation into distinct diagnostic terms (chemical fluxes) for:
Gas-phase chemistry; and
Cloud-phase (aqueous) chemistry.

While these metrics might currently not be standard for CMIP models, outlining these terms clearly could provide critical insights into SO₂-to-sulfate conversion dynamics for inter-model comparisons. At a minimum, detailed discussion of the importance of such diagnostics and their potential use in guiding future modeling efforts would be a valuable addition to your manuscript.

Importance of Consistent Definitions and Clarity
Precise definitions are essential to ensure scientific clarity. If your revised manuscript introduces alternative diagnostic metrics or terms, please ensure:
They are clearly defined, with explicit relevance to atmospheric chemistry and well-grounded in established theory.
Avoid ambiguous terms or formulations that do not reflect real-world dynamics.
Clear and consistent definitions are critical for strengthening the scientific basis of your study and will facilitate accurate comparisons across models.

Summary
I strongly recommend removing the problematic SAME quantity and incorporating a discussion of robust chemical diagnostics for SO₂ conversion to sulfate in CMIP models. These revisions are necessary before your manuscript can be considered for publication.

I look forward to your revised submission and thank you for your efforts in addressing these important points.
Best wishes,
Manish Shrivastava
Editor
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

The authors have now addressed all comments from the reviewers and me, and this has certainly improved the quality of this Manuscript. I thank the reviewers, including Dr. Schwartz, for their careful evaluation of the Manuscript. I recommend a careful spelling-check of the Manuscript including Figure Captions, before publication.

For example, in Figure 4a, the X axis label says SO2 "Depsition" Anomaly. It should be SO2 "Deposition" Anomaly.