I asked both referees to comment on the revised version of your paper. One referee recommends publication as is. The other requests further minor revisions (see report). My initial impression is that the requested revisions would improve the paper. Please can you make these revisions or else provide brief reasoning as to why you wish not to make them. I will then reconsider the paper. (I do not expect to consult either referee again.)

On the basis of your further revisions and your response I am pleased to accept the paper. My only remaining uncertainty is that the correspondence of between each of the four coloured graphs in Fig 12 (each representing a different trajectory) and the four trajectories shown in Fig 11 is not made explicit. Probably it doesn't matter -- I think that the important point is that a range of different detailed behaviours are seen and that proximity to the tropopause is a good indicator of which -- but you could explain that in a short sentence to ensure that readers are not left confused. Please can you consider making an appropriate change. Also in the middle panel of Fig 12 please be explicit about which graphs are the altitude of the trajectories and which are the altitudes of the local tropopause.