We thank the reviewer for their second report on our paper. We are glad
the paper may now be suitable for publication after the issue regarding
sentence magnetic fields larger than the Alfven turn-over scale has been
made more precise. We have now modified our text as detailed below. Our
changes to the manuscript are marked in blue.

> In the original version it said that there are no fields beyond
> the current Alfven turn-over scale, which the referee knows to be
> wrong. Now this has been changed to ‘causally generated fields with
> eddies’. This is also not quite right. It is always possible, even
> expected, to have fields on scales larger then the Alfven turn-over
> scale. And this is equally true for causally generated fields as for
> nonstationary generated fields. What the author seem to want to say is
> there exist no fully developed eddies on scales larger than the Alfven
> turn over-scale.

We have now replaced "with eddies" by "whose characteristic length scale
is", so it now reads "there should be no causally generated magnetic
fields whose characteristic length scale is larger than vA tU."

In the following paragraph in the sentence starting with "In a diagnostic
diagram ...", we have also now replaced "magnetic eddy scale" with
"characteristic length scale" so as to use the same word. The sentence
now reads "In a diagnostic diagram of magnetic field strengths or vA
vs. characteristic length scale xiM, the above considerations lead to
a line...".

> Note that has been shown that even when starting with a delta function
> in k for the magnetic field spectrum, the evolutionary equations quickly
> establish a Batchelor spectrum out to very large scales.

We agree and have now written in the last paragraph of the appendix:
"The fact that the spectrum can instantaneously develop magnetic
energy at very small k is a consequence of the Fourier transform: the
Fourier decomposition of any spatially compact field configuration can
contain modes at low k values. This should not be taken as evidence of
superluminal evolution of magnetic fields at large scales."

Before that, we have added "During the time span when the magnetic
field is still being generated, and it grows exponentially in time at a
particular wavenumber k_*, the inertial range spectrum for k<k_* can have
a slope steeper than ~k^4. An example is given by the chiral magnetic
effect, where the magnetic energy spectrum was found to be ~k^{16};
see Fig.~2 of Brandenburg+17. This is caused by mode coupling, which
affects the magnetic energy spectrum even at very small values of k."

We hope that with these additions, the paper is now acceptable.