Dear Authors,

Thank you for your replies. Can you please be more specific in a few of your answers to the first reviewer, and provide changes in the text, instead of simply a reply to the reviewer? The comments of the reviewer that I would like to detailed a bit more are listed below. The reason I am asking is that the readers might have the same questions with the reviewer, and they should find the answers in the text, not the reviewer's replies.

Major point 3: A summary paragraph on the points you present in the answer would be useful in the text. This would be helpful in combination to reviewer #2 comment.

Section 5, a: Please state these in the text as well, and support them with references, where needed. Also, please address the reviewer's point of 0.1 uncertainty of UVAI, vs. the 0.02 trends. How can small trends be significant with such an uncertainty? This needs to be clearly stated in your reply.

Section 6, e: I would appreciate expanding this answer a bit. I agree with the reply that the global analysis is valuable, but if you choose to not go with some regional analysis as the reviewer suggested, I would be interested to know why.

Section 7, g: It would be useful to add in the manuscript the second sentence of the first paragraph of your reply, either as-is, or modified.

p.6, l.159: Please add a statement in the text for this. Also note that I share the concern of the reviewer for non-additive variables: it is true that additivity might not matter for the trend study, but then the actual trend value can't be taken literally, and only qualitative conclusions can be derived following such an approach (increase/decrease), not quantitative.

Thank you,
Kostas Tsigaridis