Dear Authors: Your work points out some interesting discrepancies between the available laboratory measurements of the N2O5 UV absorption spectrum and the interpretation of field observations. I would like to point out that the actual spread in the short-wavelength absorption spectral data for N2O5 is much less than a factor of 2 as quoted in the JPL data evaluation. The spread in the data is on the order of 25 to 30%. Therefore, the differences between the field and lab is even greater (more significant) than implied in your paper. Why there is such a discrepancy is still a question. The uncertainties quoted in JPL are most likely "old" numbers that require updating, which I will try to address in the next evaluation.

There are a few minor typos that need your attention:
line 39: " In the future..."
(R16) superscript the 3 in 3P
line 417: coulds should be clouds
line 576: delete "to" in "to 4%"
Fig. 2: "yellow area" looks to be gray instead of yellow