Dear Authors,
I have reviewed your revised manuscript and acknowledge the effort that has gone into the important revisions. Before I accept it finally, I wish to make an observation that I would like you to consider prior to publication in ACP.

The paper's title speaks about the influence of BC aerosol on Arctic clouds. From the Abstract and Summary/Conclusions, it is clear that the meteorological variability explains most of the effect - in fact 91% of CF. After accounting for the meteorological variability, BC aerosol-related changes are 6% or less in the various parameters. This is an important message! It therefore seems appropriate to state this as your most important result rather than to focus on on the small aerosol effect. I realise that everything I have said is stated in the Abstract, but it seems like you are trying to salvage an aerosol effect rather than emphasise the meteorological influence. The same is true of the opening sentences of the Summary/Conclusions.
I think your paper would be much stronger if this came out more clearly. This doesn't detract from the value of your study. In fact the clarity would be welcome.
I'm not suggesting major changes - rather some rephrasing/shift in emphasis of your message.
This may be appropriate in other parts of the paper as well.

On a minor point, on pg 2, you state: "reflect the true microphysical effects of combustion-derived aerosols over sea ice and open ocean regions more accurately".
I think "true" and "more accurately" are a bit of an overstatement. How about "are more representative of the microphysical effects of..."

Sincerely,
Graham Feingold

Dear Authors,
Thank you for your changes, and for clarifying your message. I am happy to accept your paper for publication in ACP.
Best,
Graham