Dear Authors

I got a positive feedback from the reviewers. So the paper can be published in ACP after addressing the following points to clarify the discussion suggested by one of the reviewers.

Kind regards,

Federico Fierli

MINOR COMMENTS:

Comment on Page 3829, Lines 11-13: Addition has not been made to the revised text.

Comment on Figure 3: Addition has not been made to the caption in the revised version.

Comment on Page 3835, Lines 25-28: Part of the new text reads “…which is similarly due to aerosol-radiation and aerosol-cloud effects over this region resulting from the aerosol emissions reductions over the eastern USA.” This statement will be more clear if “weaker” is added before “aerosol-radiation”.

Comment on Page 3837, Lines 9-10: Could not find this corrected text in the revised version.

Comment on Page 3838, Lines 15-18: The new text reads:
“It is also interesting to note the very similar behaviour of the two NorESM members compared to the quite different responses between the two CAM4 members. In both cases the two members were generated by initializing with a different atmospheric state but keeping everything else the same. This further emphasizes the importance of using more than model, since some models are more sensitive to small perturbations in the initial conditions than others.” Minor amendment needed: “one” needs to be added between “than” and “model”. More important: It is indeed important to have more than one model, and it is useful to keep that statement in the discussion, but the disagreement between just two ensemble members in one model and the better agreement in another model may just mean that those two members happened to feature such behaviour. Nothing can guarantee that a third member would still maintain those features. The sentence should be modified/extended to make this clearer.