in general I am happy with most of the answers to the reviewers comments. However, inmany places, comments by the reviewers could have been accounted for by adding short clarifications in the text. This is particularly true for many comments by rev. #1. I suggest to add a few more additions to the text to react to the reviewer comments. I consider this to be "technical corrections".

Please revise the manuscript further based on the following reviewer comments which were acknowledged but no action was taken. This was especially true for the following comments:

Abstract: I think it would be good to stress even more that what is derived here are estimtes and that these can be used as proxies in the absnce of experimantal data, in line with rev. #1 comments.

With respect to Rev. #1 comment on FRF (p.6. l. 37 of your response file): I agree that a short sentence stating what FRF describes would be beneficial. The same is true for ODP, GWP and GTP. This would enhance the readability of the manuscript.

With respect to Rev. #1 comment on band below 500 cm-1 (p.8, l. 5 of your response files): please include the blackbody emission of the earth in this argumentation as suggested by the reviewer.

With respect to Rev. #1 comment on RE (p.10, l. 14 and 22 of your response files): please add the statement that this can only be done when measured accurate spectra are available.

With respect to the comment from rev.#2 about the use of FRF factors. the new FRF values presented in the papers by Leedham Elvidge and by Engel et al. are in most cases not very different from those used here. I would suggest to add a brief statements that a new method to calculate FRF values has been suggested by Ostermoeller et al. and applied by the two papers by Leedham Elvdige and Enge and that the general relationship between FRF and stratospheric lifetime is not laregely different (you might want to discuss the differences and include these as additional uncertainties).

With respect to reviewer#3 comment to table 1 (p. 17, l. 9 in your author response), I suggest to mention briefly in the manuscript that different IR spectra are sometimes available and that a subjective choice has been made and give some reasoning on the choice.

With respect to reviewer#3 comment to p.10, l. 9-11 of the original manuscript: I suggest to include some reasoning for the way that the broadening has been calculated.