Dear Dr. Zamora and co-authors,

I appreciate your hard work in responding thoughtfully to all reviewer comments and I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in ACP once the following small issues have been addressed:

1. In your references to Table 2, I don't see where you discuss what it means for a significant result to become insignificant with altitude binning. Perhaps I simply missed it. I also don't fully understand what altitude binning means in the context of this table. Do you mean that you divided the set of observations into various altitude bins and checked for a relationship in each bin separately? And what do you interpret this loss of significance with binning to mean in a larger sense?

2. p2, line 30: is in turn key --> is, in turn, key

3. p3, line 24: It was vital to our method that --> it was vital that

4. p3, line 30: we identified the subsets --> we identified subsets

5. p4, lines 8-9: recommend rewording as "vertical resolution of 30 m within the layer (up to 8 km) where most predominantly liquid Arctic Ocean clouds were found."

6. p4, line 11-12: I believe you mean to say that the horizontal resolution increases (or the pixel size decreases).

7. p 5, line 12: I think a word is missing after "background molecular". Possibly you meant to say "background molecular scattering"?