|Overall: The manuscript is significantly improved by the authors’ edits and it is worth publishing. However, it still requires major revision. Although the writing is generally understandable, the entire manuscript should be reviewed and edited for grammar and clarity. Overall, the main issue with the manuscript is the organization, which makes it extremely difficult to follow. It should be possible to easily find the results of the paper and discussion of those results, which is currently very difficult since they are intermixed with introductory material and methods. |
Please rewrite the statement of what this work does on page 3, lines 8-10, to be more general and relate better to what is actually done in the paper. The current lines suggest that this work specifically focusses on the two processes that change the surface albedo in cloudy conditions (1) cloud-induced weighting of the transmitted downward irradiance to smaller wavelengths and 2) a shift from direct to diffuse irradiance in cloudy conditions). However, this seems to be too specific based on the results presented. A better statement would be that this work evaluates the effects of surface albedo-cloud interactions on CRF, including the impact of areal vs local albedo and exploration of the dependence of surface albedo on cloud LWP for different surface types, and during ACLOUD; and that this work presents the effect of surface albedo-cloud interactions on CRF during ACLOUD. This statement should be parallel with what is in the abstract and conclusions.
Sections 3 and 4: These sections intermix introductory material, methods, and results. To my read, Section 3.1 is introductory material, Section 3.2 is definitions, Section 3.3 is an uncertainty estimate for a particular source of error, and Section 3.4 presents an interesting result that is perhaps novel? Section 3.4.1 seems to give an overall estimation of uncertainty and it is unclear to me why it is a subsection of 3.4. Section 3.5 refers to the processes (1) and (2) above and, as such, would seem to be a main result of the paper, so why is it buried here? Why are all these subsections grouped together in one section? Section 4.1 seems to be methods again. Section 4.1.1 is entitled “Application to the observations,” but various things have already been applied to various observations, so a more descriptive title is needed; perhaps “Dependence of surface albedo on cloud LWP for ACLOUD measurements.” The Section 4.2 title, “Correction of CRF,” is also insufficiently descriptive and should be changed.
Please put introductory material (Section 3.1) into the introduction, or its own section. Please consider having a section on methods, that groups all methods together (e.g. 2.2, 3.2, 4.1), and a section on uncertainty (which would include Sections 3.3 and 3.4.1.) The results seem to be contained in Sections 3.4, 3.5, 4.1.1 and 4.2, so these should be grouped together. Furthermore, section titles should make clear that 3.5 represents a model study related to the two processes showing how broadband albedo changes with LWP for different surface types (related to process 2) and attenuation of incident irradiance by clouds (related to process 1), whereas 4.1.1 shows how broadband albedo changes with LWP for the ACLOUD measurements (related to process 2).
Please put a horizontal space (extra line break) between paragraphs or begin new paragraphs with an indent so the reader can tell when a paragraph ends.
Page 6 last line – Page 7 lines 1-2: Please delete these sentences. I do not see the point of them, as the current work would also fall into the category of being limited in comparability to previous results due to a different means of computing CRF. Furthermore, the current work relies on aircraft flights, which are not available to many of the previous studies and therefore could not be applied to them.
Page 7 lines 4-6: Please delete these lines or change them to “Below, we derive the … CRF. Our approach is unique in that we use a continuous … cloudy conditions.” Please add to the sentence any aspect of using the areal-averaged albedo that is unique to this work. E.g, if it’s true you could say, “ Below, we derive the … CRF. Our approach is unique in that we use a continuous … cloudy conditions, and in that we account for horizontal photon transport through using the areal-averaged albedo to compute downward shortwave fluxes, as discussed below.”
In these equations, the two alphas in Eqn. 7 are later replaced with two non-equal terms, which is not mathematically correct. You can avoid this and simplify by adding the subscripts “all” and “cf” to the relevant alphas in Eqn (8). With this change, Eqn (10) could then replace Eqn (9), which would no longer be needed. The text from lines 19-22 could then be moved to just before Eqn (8) to provide the necessary context, after revising it to read “The surface albedo changes for … Warren (1982). Thus, the measured surface albedo has been separated … alpha_cf.”
Page 11, line 12: reference needed after “(increasing grain size).” Lines 16-19: references are needed. Also, this text through page 14 line 2 seems to be an expansion of information that was given in the introduction and should therefore be moved to the introduction. Retain here only enough information needed to introduce and discuss the results (e.g. “Fig. 5 shows the effect of …”).
Section 4.2 seems like an important section but the results shown in Fig. 10 are not described sufficiently. The caption/text and the legend do not agree. What is “Corrected delta F?” This phrase occurs nowhere else in the paper.
The conclusion (page 20) slowly transitions from a description of the literature, which is not always referenced (lines 12-14, line 17) to results from the current work. Is line 18-20 from the literature or current work? Please reference all statements that are already known and start a new paragraph for the findings of this work, which should begin with a sentence using language such as “we find” or “our results show” to make this clear.