Thank you for revising and submitting the manuscript. The authors have revised the manuscript in accordance with the referee suggestions and are explained very well. However, I have some more comments on this version. Please correct the manuscript accordingly and submit the author response file too.

Abstract and Conclusions: Is it possible to make a statement regarding the inter-annual variability of snowfall from your analyses?
P01, L25: delete “so-”
P03, L14: The CPR
P05, L09: length or volume. Are you talking about the time series?
P6, L19: it assimilates radiance data from a number of satellites
P6, L20: The ERA-Interim
P8, L16: the height of surface bin
Figures 3 and 5: there are no panels. Please write figures on the left or right.
P10, L03: It can be seen that
P10, L04: as far as the complex topography is concerned?
P10, L14: “blind zone”; measurements are not possible or measurements cannot be used?
P12, L01: “hereafter”
P12, L06-08: Just write that “Our findings are consistent with that of Palerme et al. (2019).” No need of justification regarding the discussion paper.
P13, L05: 0.3% is affected.
P13, L17: more correction? “an additional correction” would be a better choice
P13, L21: “from which it was derived” and “stem”
P13, L22: “correction not to produce viable results”? What was the purpose correction here?
P14, L16: “onset” of mie-scattering?
Figure 9, Caption: “… visual reference to show the difference …”
P15, L08: extending this analysis
P17, L04: “derived”
P18, L09: I did not understand the sentence. Please rephrase it.
P18, L19: “not surprising as CloudSat provides ”
P18, L29: I would consider your original word choice here; “effects” not impacts
Figure 13: It would be good to give a name for the x-axis : “Year”
P20, L10, 20: delete “so-”
P22, L10: the uncertainty of CloudSat retrievals?
P27, L06: “significantly underrepresented”, to avoid one of the two “potentially” from the sentence.