Dear Authors

Thank you for providing the revised manuscript “The effects of aerosols on water cloud microphysics and macrophysics based on satellite-retrieved data over East Asia and the North Pacific” as well as your responses to the issues raised during the review.

Based on the reviewer’s comments and my own assessment I have concluded to reconsider your manuscript for publication in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after minor revisions.

Many of the reviewer’s comments have been resolved in your response. However, I would kindly ask you to address the issues raised in the review of your revised manuscript as well as the points listed below.

I am looking forward to your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,

Philip Stier
Co-Editor
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics


General issues:

The manuscript draws some strong conclusions about the attribution of cloud macro- and microphysical differences to aerosol effects, which is entirely based on the comparison of different regions that show different levels of aerosol optical depth. However, the analysed regions differ in a large number of factors, including land / sea fractions (the polluted region is predominantly over land, the clean regions predominantly over sea), that are also expected to affect cloud macro- and microphysical properties. I therefore concur with the reviewers that related statements and conclusions about aerosol effects should be less unambiguous and clearly stating assumptions and uncertainties. Alternatively please extend the analysis to support the attribution to specific effects. This relates to:

1. Page 6, line 97: “This suggests the occurrence of the second indirect effect (Albrecht, 1989)”.

2. ”Page 7, line 12 “We interpret this characteristic of CFODDs as a second indirect aerosol effect around the cloud base (large part of ICOD) over the Industrial area.”

3. Page 7, line 15: “over mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, and the stable and high LTSS environment results in a high aerosol concentration near the surface. Therefore, an aerosol–cloud interaction may occur that results in weaker radar reflectivity in the larger ICOD region.”

4. Page 7, line 79: “In addition, we found a difference in “contoured frequency by optical-depth diagram” (CFODD) between the pristine oceanic area and the polluted land area, reflecting the aerosol–cloud interaction.”

Clouds in this manuscript are characterised by some of their macro- and microphysical properties. However, the actual cloud regimes may be very different for different seasons and regions. This should be clear.

Specific issues:

5. Page 4, line 38“The results suggested that the precipitation occurrence is most strongly related to LWP, except for the Industrial area.”
This is not directly obvious from the table. Please add more explanation that supports your conclusion.

6. Page 4, line 43“more cumulative cloud”
Presumably you mean convective or cumulus cloud?

7. Fig. 3: the quality plot should be improved

8. Fig. 4 and 5: Define “Transition pattern of drizzle intensity” and explain this a bit more. Make captions entirely self-explaining. The arrows are not entirely self explaining and it needs to be entirely clear how they have been derived.

9. ”Page 7, line 12 “We interpret this characteristic of CFODDs as a second indirect aerosol effect around the cloud base (large part of ICOD) over the Industrial area.’
It is not entirely clear what you mean by an “aerosol effect around the cloud base”, in particular as it is unclear what cloud types this relates to.

Dear Authors

Thank you for providing a revised manuscript “The effects of aerosols on water cloud microphysics and macrophysics based on satellite-retrieved data over East Asia and the North Pacific” as well as your responses to the issues raised during the second review.

I have assessed your revised manuscript and am pleased to inform you that the manuscript is now accepted for publication in ACP subject to one technical correction.

Thank you for choosing Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

Kind regards,

Philip Stier
Co-Editor
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics



Technical correction:

Your response: AC6: We have changed it to “convective or cumulus cloud”

These words are pretty much synonymous so I would suggest to use either or.