I thank the authors for carefully considering and thoroughly responding to my comments. They have put in a lot of effort to revise the manuscript, and I am happy with most of their changes. Therefore, I only have some minor comments and suggestions.
1. I don’t question that convective cores contain or once contained active deep convection, so I don’t think the addition of the ERA vertical velocity is necessary. I simply wanted a clear statement in the text that these regions often include stratiform precipitation in addition to convective precipitation, which is now included, so including or excluding the new ERA vertical velocity analysis is up to you. If it is kept though, I suggest removing the term “updrafts” though because updrafts typically refer to smaller scales than the ERA analysis. Vertical motion at the ERA resolution can correspond to embedded convective motions or larger-scale ascent associated with waves or stratiform precipitation.
2. Is the definition of land and ocean (fraction > 0.5) included anywhere in the text? If not, can this definition be added to the text?
3. What is meant by “less convective ocean regions” on page 10, lines 28-29 in the track changed version of the manuscript? Please calrify.
4. 1. I like the addition of regional relationships, but it would be nice to point out that in addition to having similar relationships to all tropical land and ocean regions in general, relationships between different land regions or different ocean regions do differ, especially for minimum brightness temperature and thin cirrus/anvil fraction, while rain rates are quite variable between different land regions. It also seems that convective intensity related metrics (minimum Tb, rain rate) differ the most early in the life cycle, while area related metrics differ the most late in the life cycle. Again, it is up to you whether to add information, but I find it to be relevant to interpreting the larger-scale tropical land and ocean results.
5. The in depth first paragraph added in Section 4 discussing results in Takahashi and Luo (2014) seems out of place in a results section, since it doesn’t discuss results from this manuscript, and I’m confused as to its relevance to interpreting the results. I suggest cutting this down or removing it. Additionally, the second to last paragraph in Section 4 seems like a rather large aside, again getting into convective intensity and relationships with environmental conditions and radar measurements, which again, seems off topic, especially since the discussion of the results is in the context of convective depth rather than intensity. Not that intensity can’t be mentioned, but focusing on it as much as it now is in these paragraphs draws attention away from the main points of the paper.
6. Although an increase in the size of systems is observed with increased convective depth in different regions, it may be important to note that the slope of this relationship changes, especially for ocean regions, where the W. Pacific is similar to land regions rather than the other ocean regions (E. Pacific and Atlantic), so it would seem that the ocean points in Figure 11 are not representative of all ocean regions, and therefore, the statement on page 12, lines 31-33 in the track changed version isn’t true for the W. Pacific.
7. Similarly, for thin cirrus/anvil fraction as a function of minimum Tb, I agree that the general relationship of the fraction increasing with decreasing minimum Tb occurs in all regions, but the regional spread of the magnitude of the thin cirrus/anvil fraction for a given minimum Tb is large, which I think should be noted in the text.