One of the reviewers requests more explanation and justification. I hope the authors could examine the report and provide reply and revision. Thank you very much.

Dear Authors,

I find that most of concerns and points raised by the reviewers
were adequately addressed. I understand that choosing one best harmonization scenario distinguished from others
is difficult because of uncertainties as carefully discussed.
Rather, acknowledging such harmonization uncertainty in the analysis is a new and important point by itself. In this context
the manuscript should be regarded valuable. I now request minor revisions on the following points:
------------------
1. page 9 (author response version 2).
Why scenario 1 is superior to scenario 2 should be briefly mentioned.
How are the following results and discussion
altered when scenario 2 is selected?

2. page 17, line 7. HO2

3. page 17, line 17. boreal autumn

4. Degree sign is sometimes missing.

5. page 18, line 24. Where in main text did the authors discuss the trend -0.1+/-0.3% year-1 mentioned here?
"The global mean trend" should be for global tropics?

6. page 19, line 4. Citation did not appear correctly.

-------

Yugo Kanaya, Co-editor of ACP

Dear Authors,

I am happy to tell that your revised manuscript is acceptable, after the following technical corrections.

1. page 17, line 7. Still OH2. HO2 is correct.
2. Degree sign that I commented is for latitude/longitude. For example page 18, line 22 (15S and 15N). Check throughout your manuscript.

Regards,
Yugo Kanaya, ACP Co-Editor