The sections affected by the issues around the incorrect figures have been addressed. The overall conclusions have not changed and I have no additional comments.

This is a review of the manuscript by De Hertog et al. It is a corrected version of the paper by the same authors published last year. That paper was retracted due to multiple errors in the model data analysis that compromised its scientific integrity. Errors include i) Map of near-surface temperature instead of surface temperature for MPI-ESM in Figure 5, and ii) wrong sign of the sensible and latent heat fluxes for EC-EARTH affecting Figures 4, 9, 10 in the main text and Figures E3, E4, E7, E8, E13, E14 in Appendix E and associated text.

The updated figure makes much more sense compared to what was in the original publication. I still have some questions that need to be addressed. I will focus on the error related to the EC-Earth model as it is where most of the issues were.

L126 Update Döscher et al. to the published article.

L186-195 This is not totally true. EC-Earth has a dynamic vegetation model (LPJ-GUESS, Smith et al. 2014) and this is different from CESM and MPI-ESM. The main difference is in the assumption of what a forest is. For CESM and MPI-ESM the areas that are afforested are assumed to be a forest directly (in a physical sense) despite that the tree PFTs don't have any biomass. The forest just appears directly after the land cover map is changed. This is an assumption/model setup that you can have, but why this was made differently for EC-Earth I don't understand. In the EC-Earth setup of this study, it is the biomass of the trees that determines the physical parameters of the forest which is the opposite of the other models. It will take time for a tree to grow to a size that affects anything. And perhaps in many of the areas where the forest should be, the tree PFTs might not be productive and no tree biomass is created. I guess that the tree biomass between the three models is similar in areas of afforestation but definitely, the physical parameters are different due to the differences in model setups. This difference in the setup is what drives the difference between the models, not that EC-Earth has a dynamic vegetation model. To state that the same approach isn’t possible for EC-Earth (having a physical forest directly after the change of land cover map) is not true. There is no switch for this, but a very small hack of the code would make the EC-Earth behave in the same way as CESM and MPI-ESM. It is pity that this hasn’t been done as now any FRST-CTRL comparison between the models is extremely hard. This also explains the albedo discrepancy or EC-Earth compared to the other models in Figure 4c and D2 and makes your statement in L778-783 wrong. There isn’t an error in how EC-Earth represents albedo, but an error in your model setup, as explained above. If there isn’t any extensive new tree biomass in afforested areas, then you won’t see a change in albedo. The other models see a change in albedo due to the physical parameters being set to be a forest, hence they see a large change in albedo. This discrepancy between the model setups needs to be made very clear, as the author seems to not understand it themselves and make wrong statements about EC-Earth due to their error in setting up the model simulations. Also, all other FRST-CTRL comparisons with EC-Earth show very small effects. This is also due to the above-explained setup error. And FRST-CROP comparisons with EC-Earth will mainly be driven by the CROP change to CTRL as FRST to CTRL shows so minor differences. So the effect of the different model setups needs to be made much clearer.

L197-202 The irrigation in EC-Earth is only applied to the dynamic vegetation model. The physical model (IFS/HTESSEL) doesn’t see any difference between an irrigated or rainfed cropland as it has a separate water cycle compared to LPJ-GUESS (see Döscher et al. 2022). So, no water is added to the physical model. The only difference it sees is the change in LAI between an irrigated and rainfed crop PFT. This needs to be explained as this makes it easier to explain the small temperature impact in Figure 7i-l. It is too late to bring this up in the discussion (L639-642), it should be explained already when the experimental design is described and hence EC-Earth should be fully excluded from the IRR-CROP analysis as has been done in figures 9 and 10.