Dear Authors,

Referee#2 has some further suggestions for minor/technical corrections. Please find them in their report and also copied below.
After these changes, I will be happy to accept your manuscript for publication in ACP.

Sincerely
Barbara Ervens
Executive Editor

--------------------------
Comments by Referee #2
I thank the authors for considering and addressing my comments. A couple of minor points I would suggest to help clarify the scope and one of the key points of the paper is:
1) please consider including “liquid” between “cloud” and “water” in the title, since they are the focus of the paper as the authors emphasize in the manuscript.
2) Would it be fair to say that the key point that comparisons between in situ observations and “model” (or more precisely reanalysis) data should not be restricted to the track of the aircraft is essentially implying that the authors think that a larger sample size is more important than precisely colocating the observations with models when it comes to in situ observations? Please clarify in the manuscript.

Line 283: “is” is not necessary after “peak”