Hi,

Referee 1 declined to review this version. Referee 2 is in general happy with your changes and only suggested some technical corrections. I assume these will be visible for you. Otherwise, contact me.

I personally reacted on one new comment in the manuscript. On lines 183-184 you mention numerical instabilities when increasing the resolution of the simulation. Very nice of you to be open about this issue. But the comment raises several questions. How did you ensure that the numerical problems do not affect the results you present? Is this a known limitation of COSMOS? If yes, please add a reference. If not, then I think you must expand on the subject? What part caused the instabilities? Is this a fundamental limitation of COSMOS? If a new finding, the problems should be considered in the Conclusion section (and even the abstract?).

That is, I must ask you to clarify things around the numerical problems you have encountered. I marked this as a minor revision.

Kind regards,

Patrick

In general, I leave grammar issues to the language copy-editing, but as you did quite substantial text changes I had to read parts of the manuscript again. And I then found several issues, that you should fix before final approval. (To be clear, I have not made a complete, nor very careful reading, and there could be additional issues)

L65: Missing space after adequate

L111: where -> were

L135 Seems redundant to write "exemplary illustrates", "illustrates" suffices

L196: follows -> following

L198: CDNC -> CDNCs

L207: You did not simulate any flights with COSMO. Write e.g.: During the four considered flights only ...

L305: Not sure if I follow. Should it be "restricted by"?

L307: Rather that the COSMO results consist of 64 by 64 grid points, than COSMO itself.

L309: I suggest to change to "... resolutions, which are ...". Otherwise
"show" at the end of the line shall be changed to "shows".

L402: You have two "show" in the same sentence. Change the last to "indicate"?

L549: Remove "a" before "stronger"

L587: Is "adjusted" correct word here? Don't you mean "averaged"?

L602: is -> are

L616: I suggest to change "was" to "was also".

L639: lead -> leads

L654: "needs" -> "need"

Finally, I suggest that you consider (throughout the manuscript) when you use present and pasted tense. Some examples on inconsistent use:

L604: Here you refer to an older study using present tense.

L613: Here you refer to an older study using pasted tense.

You also switch between present and pasted tense when referring to the simulations and the capability of COSMOS. compare e.g. L602 and L609. Or see the sentence around L655: "COSMO performed ... are present" (i.e. past and present tense mixed in a single sentence)