General comments:

1. The motivation/introduction would be improved with additional information. For example, example, where in the curriculum does this course fit in? Are these undergraduate students or graduate students? Is there any other course that covers this material? Additional background about this and why the course was developed would be useful to include. Are there pre-existing courses elsewhere that this course was modeled after? The degree of innovation of this course would be clearer with both more specific context of the institution as well as broader community context (i.e., how novel is this course).
2. With regards to course design/requirements, I have several questions. What was the title of the course? What were the course learning objectives? Did students self-select into this course? How many hours per day and days per week did the course meet? How did the authors decide the topics to cover? How were students evaluated? What was submitted with the project? What were the course requirements? Was the class conducted using in-person instruction? What was the method of content delivery (e.g., lecture vs. active learning activities vs. group work, etc)? How many students were enrolled? This section in particular needed a lot more information in it to give readers a good sense of what the course was like.
3. Highlighting the student projects is interesting, though given the limited time spent on them (thus preventing a more detailed analysis), I would be more curious about student feedback about the course and the skills that they were supposed to acquire. If the authors continue to include these projects, a bit more information about them would be helpful (e.g., how these were assessed). Alternatively, simply including them in the supplemental material would be sufficient.
4. Was there any kind of pre- and post-assessment given to students? Being able to demonstrate that this course was impactful on student understanding of convection (in a quantified way) as well as specific skills would be very useful, particularly given the short timeline.

Specific comments:

1. Line 28: By “realistic models,” do you mean operational models? The phase “realistic” implies that the results from CM1 are unrealistic, which is not correct.
2. Line 35: Since the authors are specific in their choice of model, what software was used to visualize model results? This is mentioned later, but would be helpful to describe here as well.
3. Line 42: Is visualization instruction rare at your institution, or more broadly? If so, please provide a citation or other reference.
4. Line 134: I don’t think there is enough information given about what is active learning or what sorts of learning activities occurred in the course on a day-to-day basis for the authors to be able to describe the course as using an active learning approach. It may be an appropriate label, but there simply isn’t enough information provided to the reader.
5. Line 156: I’m unfamiliar with the term “fazit”

Technical corrections:

1. Line 16: The phrase “…often essential for a further career in meteorology” sounds a bit off. Further, not every single scientist who earns a degree in meteorology needs these skills. Thus, I suggest rephrasing to something like “…often essential for many career paths in meteorology”
2. Line 84: “A follow-up course is in planning” should be “A follow-up course is currently being planned.”