Dear Juan Huo and coauthors,
as outlined in the comments of the referees, the paper has improved in comparison to the first version. However, they feel that several clarification are still important before publication. I recommend to follow the referees' suggestions, which to my opinion the paper will further benefit from.
Best wishes, Martina Krämer

Dear Juan Huo and co-authors,

based on the referees suggestions, I accept the paper now after minor revisions. Please consider the last points the referees raised, then the paper can be published in ACP.

I have one further point from my side. I saw another paper where data analyzes based on the same data set are presented:

J Huo, C Han, M Duan, X Wu, Y Bi, Y Tian:
Particle reflectivity and movements in cirrus clouds over Beijing from
four years of Ka radar measurements,
Atmospheric Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.105211,
available online 22 August, in Press, Journal Pre-proof, 2020.

In this paper it is stated that it is an extension of the ACPD manuscript. So I think the Atmospheric Research paper should be referenced in the ACPD paper and suggest to discuss and compare the ACPD results to that of the Atmospheric Research paper, maybe in a short extra section at the end of the manuscript.

Best wishes, Martina Krämer

Dear Juan Huo and co-authors,

in the new version of the paper, you have considered the point that I raised the last time. However, the treatment of the last comments of the two referees is missing - see my last decision:
'Please consider the last points the referees raised,... '

Please also consider these points in the revised manuscript and in the author's response, then the publication process can continue.

Best wishes, Martina Krämer

Dear Juan Huo and co-authors,

I really would have liked to finally accept the paper, but unfortunately there are still a few points to clarify, which are listed below. I will be happy to accept the paper for publication after these points have been taken into account.

Best wishes, Martina Krämer


1) please check the new Figures 5 and 6 for the following reason:

when comparing the new with the old Figures, the only difference that I can see is the color code. This is strange since you switched from linear to logarithmic color code. The reason to do that was to make the data points below about -50C (shown in Figure 8) visible, but these points are still not seen. The color at the low temperatures is blue, which means 1 data point in each data interval. This is not in agreement with the data numbers noted in Figure 8 at the lower temperatures.

2) Figure 6, caption: it is still noted that the number of the counts is divided by 5000, I don't think that is the case.

3) Point 6) of the last review, new lines 334-335: new text inserted in the paper: 'The reason is that at these altitudes both in situ origin and liquid origin cirrus appear, whereas at colder temperatures only in situ origin cirrus exist.' Since this is one of the findings of Krämer et al. (2020), to my feeling this paper could be cited.