Dear Tonttila et al.,

Thanks very much for submitting the revised manuscript. I've received minor comments from a reviewer. Please respond to his/her comments point-by-point, and revise the manuscript accordingly.

I look forward to receiving the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Christine

Dear Tonttila et al.,

Thanks very much for submitting the revised manuscript – I found your work interesting and important. I am happy with your revisions, but would like to make sure that the paper is easy for readers to follow and understand. I therefore have some suggestions for your consideration. Some may seem minor, but it would actually help a lot.

1) Page 2, Line 8: Readers may not understand what "the subcolumn space" means when they read your abstract before they dig into the paper in more detail. I would suggest finding a way to write it to be a bit more understandable, but I have been picky here.

2) It would be a good practice that one paragraph stresses one key point only. I found the 1st paragraph of Section 2 includes a lot of information, but the content could be more systematically represented and separated a bit better. I know it is quite challenging, but perhaps could consider to group the bits of radiation, vertical velocity, and LWC/CDNC a bit better. At least, it is needed to start a new paragraph from Page 5, Line 1, "The subgrid vertical velocity sample...".

3) Page 5, Line 10 - It is mentioned that the focus of this paper is on stratiform clouds. It would be better that this information is brought up clearly in Introduction.

4) Page 5, Line 5 - Could you please provide reasoning and justification for the choice of minimum concentration of 40 cm^(-3)? Also, to address Reviewer #2's comment, the potential impacts of this minimum on your results are not really discussed on page 16. Please elaborate on this in more detail.

5) Page 7, Line 21-23: For readers' benefit, it would be better to mention "HAM2 aerosol module' in Line 21, rather than in Line 23.

6) The paragraph starting from Page 7, Line 26: This paragraph could be re-organised a bit better. For example, the sentence in Line 27-28 actually links better with Page 8, Line 3, but the flow is interrupted by the sentence on Page 8, Line 1-2. Could you please re-organise this paragraph?

7) Page 8, Line 5–8: The non-linear relationship between autoconversion rate, water content, and CDNC determines what we will get eventually when subgrid variability is included; that's why you explain your results by talking about this relationship on page 8 and Page 12. I understand this has been probably explained by some literature, but a bit more detailed explanation will help on page 8. Specifically, "including variations about the mean...." is not that clear to me.

8) The Paragraph starting from Page 11, Line 19: Frankly, this paragraph is not easy to read. Could the authors please take a bit time to see if connections between sentences and the logical flow could be improved?

9) Page 11, Line 21: Can the reported values (4.95 and 7.62) be found/inferred from any Figures/tables in the manuscript? I don't see any close values from Figure 5 or Table 2.

10) There should be alway a space between number and unit.