I thought that the response to comments document was unclear on several points. I asked the 3 reviewers to review the paper again, and unfortunately, all 3 reviewers declined to review again. My sense is that the paper is good, but that you were perhaps sloppy in your responses to the reviews. To avoid delay, rather than sending the paper to a new set of reviewers, I have decided that I will follow up with you on several points that I thought were unclear. Please make another attempt to clarify these points.

Reviewer #1

Comment 2 - You compare RCP4.5 with RCP8.5, but it is not clear how these relate with the current paper. Please rewrite the explanation of why ozone forcing is different in this study.

Comment 3 - The response is good, but the reviewer had asked that natural forcings be compared with those calculated here. You mention "large changes" in natural forcings, but do not provide a quantitative comparison. Please rewrite so that this comparison is made quantitatively.

Comment 4 - Again, you mention other studies that can be useful for interpreting the results, but do not provide a basis for quantifying how large variability is, which the reviewer had asked for. I also don't think that you should reference a paper in preparation (Sand), and it is not in the list of references.

Reviewer #2

Comment 2 - This is the same statement used above, but it does not address the reviewer comment of "based on entirely different chemical and meteorological background states / years)." Please address the comment.

Comment 3 - You say why you do not evaluate trends over Asia, since measurements do not go back to 2000. But why couldn't you evaluate the present day, and not just the trend?

Comment 4 - It appears that modeled trends are compared with surface observation trends, and then the trends in modeled surface and column loadings are compared. The reviewer had suggested comparing with satellite-derived trends as being more directly relevant for radiative forcing. Why is that not done here?

Comment 7 - This is the same text used to address a comment above, and I do think it clearly communicates the reason for the difference.

Comment 11 - The short response doesn't resolve the reviewer question of how methane is handled.

Reviewer #3

General comments - I don't see that this comment was addressed: "I would encourage the authors to emphasize the objectives of their work as well as to deepen the analysis of the process chain leading to the simulated forcing changes."

Comment 1 - The reviewer asked for a discussion of the emission changes and the arbitrary selection of models. The response addresses the emission changes but not the selection of models.

Comment on Table 2 - I don't know how to interpret "and for the US periods 2000-2010 and 1990-2010 have been derived."