Thank you for your responses to the reviewers' comments. I think that the paper is close to being acceptable but I think that you need to include more information that you give in response to some questions in the text of the paper. Even if you cannot answer the reviewers' questions fully, I think you need to acknowledge that there may be an issue. If you don't provide some comment in the main paper, then other readers may ask themselves the same question.

The points I am raising relate to your action on the questions:

Rev 1: Line 136: CCl4 is measured at MHD by GC-MS and GC-ECD - the latter data are preferred because there are inherent problems in AGAGE in measuring CCl4 by GCMS. Do these problems exist for GC-MS at JFJ, and, if they do, do they impact on this analysis.

Rev2: What actually are the time series? Are they averaged in any way or are they individual samples? What is the dip seen in the CCl4 concentrations at CMN in 2006? This does not appear to be seen at MHD which suggests it is a local phenomenon. How can such a drop below the expected NH background be accounted for? The period seems to last for several months so presumably cannot be put down to a stratospheric event or southern hemisphere air. Does this period of abnormally low concentrations have any impact on the inversions? Why is the baseline signal in the middle panel so much more variable than the other 2? Perhaps this also relates back to the choice of ECD over MS at Mace Head?

The information that you provide in your responses on e.g. the choice of data, the varying baseline and the existence (and impact) of the dip at CMN need to be worked into the main paper (e.g. in section describing data or section discussing Fig 2).