Authors,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript for consideration for publication in Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics. The referees agree that the manuscript is ready for publication, and I will accept it pending minor technical corrections/suggestions listed below.

Line 51: Huffman et al. (2013) does not show results related to GCCN, but rather suggests that GCCN could play a role. The sentence as written in Line 51 is not correct, however. I suggest simply removing GCCN from this sentence, or altering the sentence to make more accurate to the cited text.

Figures 1-5 state "days from a key day" on the x-axis. This is ambiguous, as written, whether it implies only "after" or also "after and before." Please make this explicitly clear. This will aid readers in understanding the messages quickly.

Referee #3 offered suggestions that I feel strengthen the text. I have copied these here below. Please process these suggestions as appropriate:

The abstract does not fully reflect the main conclusion of the paper. It contains information that is more suitable for the introduction. This material could be shortened in the abstract, to allow more space for the main conclusions to be discussed. For instance, lines 12-15 are very wordy when describing the methods. This could be shortened to something along the lines of, “Differences in IN concentrations and rainfall after and before days of large rainfall accumulation (i.e., key days) were calculated for measurements made over the past century in southeastern and southwestern Australia.”

The second paragraph in the abstract reads too much like an introduction. It would be helpful if the authors added one introductory sentence in the first paragraph (after the very first sentence) delineating that in particular, biological species such as bacteria (i.e., P. syringae) and fungi are released following rainfall and have been shown to serve as efficient IN, in turn impacting cloud and precipitation formation. Further, the abstract should have a more general closing sentence reiterating the scientific significance of this work.

Minor comments:

Line 11: Include, “its formation, quantity, frequency, and location” after “influence”.
Line 11: Specify which effects of IN on rainfall are being investigated (i.e., frequency and quantity)
Line 15: The authors should clarify the logarithmic trends are increasing after a key day.
Lines 14-17: Combine sentences to, “Cumulative differences in IN concentrations and daily rainfall quantity and frequency as a function of days from a key day demonstrated statistically significant increasing logarithmic trends (r2 > 0.97).” The authors might also want to add how many sites for each factor were correlated above 0.97.
Line 20: include “rainfall” before “totals”.
Lines 35-38: Run-on, consider splitting this sentence into two.
Lines 98-100: This sentence is more appropriate for the abstract.
Line 278: Put which day in January.
Line 308: Clarify that the 0.97 is r2.
Lines 491-493: Are there any references the authors could cite to corroborate this statement?
Line 531: Clarify that these are biological IN.
Figure 2 and Figure 3 captions: Cumulative differences (CD) in IN concentrations…
Conclusion section: The authors could emphasize that these measurements are among the few of the long-term measurements of IN and rainfall relationships.