Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript that has been reviewed by two referees. As you can see in their reports, referee #1 still has a major concern on the performance of SAM0, compared to CAM5, in simulating Arctic clouds and its attribution to the overestimate of poleward moisture transport, along with several minor comments. Referee #2 is happy with the revisions but provided several good suggestions for further improvement. Please address these comments in your next revision.

Sincerely,

Hailong Wang (Co-editor)

Dear authors,

I received mixed final reviews of your manuscript. One of the referees still has a concern on the scientific significance of this study, although it is believed that the in-depth cloud water budget analysis is thorough and novel. However, all referees and I agree that the main conclusions and supporting analyses have been much strengthened after the revisions. Based on the overall evaluation from all three referees, I believe this study can make a useful contribution to the literature. I recommend it for publication after the following revisions and corrections are made.

Sincerely,

Hailong Wang, Editor

1) Please explicitly note the years in the caption of figures that show a comparison between models and observations.
2) Page 7 (line 239): I don’t think this statement is accurate because RH doesn’t have a linear relationship with moisture and temperature. Please revise or remove.
3) Page 7 (line 263): change “those with tops” to “fractional coverage of cloud”
4) Page 8 (line 289): Please clarify “two radiations”. Longwave and shortwave radiative fluxes?
5) Page 8 (line 295-297): I don’t think this statement of causal relationship is supported here. The smaller snow depth and surface albedo can be due to other factors such as less snowfall, not necessarily the warmer temperature. Please revise.
6) Page 8 (line 299): change “charges” to “changes”
7) Page 9 (line 327-330): This can be removed or needs to be elaborated.

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing the previous comments and making the additional effort in the English language editing. The readability of your paper is now much improved. I am happy to accept it for publication in ACP.

Sincerely,

Hailong Wang, Editor