Dear authors,

I am pleased to inform you that your paper is accepted after consideration of the following technical corrections:

1. to have only Sections without any subsections in a paper is not a good structure. I would either simply put Sections 3-8 in one Section, thus then being Section "3. Results" or use two Sections, one for 3-5 being then the new Section 3 named e.g. "Comparison of PV" and 6-8 the second one as Section 4 named e.g "Comparison of PV derived metrics".

2. Throughout the manuscript you use "*" as multiplication symbol. I remember that in the Copernicus Style guidelines was written that one should rather use a dot or a "x". Please check.

3. Additional to where potential temperature levels are given (e.g. where you state above 2000 K) the approximate level on pressure coordinates should be additionally given.

P3, L28: a set fix -> a set of fixed (?)

P5, L23: sentence not clear. Seems something is missing. Please rephrase.

P5, L23: Abbreviation" SH" has not been introduced and is also not further used. Thus, write "Southern Hemisphere" instead.

P6, L12: provided -> "provide" or "woud provide"

P6, L17: add "the" so that reads "the same area as the given...."

P6, Eq. 3 "sin" should be written in an upright (roman) font.

P6, L25: A = A (q) should be written in italic

P6, L29: I would suggest to write "bad quality" rather than " bad". What exactly are bad values in your case? What criterion is used for classifying them?

P8, L28: have as strong an -> have a so strong (?)

P8, L24: Higher than what? The 2.0 PVU? Be more pecise.

P9, L4: an -> a

P9, L11: "a" obsolete if you use the plural

P9, L34: spaces before and after the slash are obsolete

P11, L29: timeseries -> time series

P12, L2: intercompare -> intercompared

Figure 6 and 8 caption: Which left columns? The first two? Be more precise.

Best regards, Farahnaz Khosrawi