Dear Dr. Thornhill,

Thank you for addressing the review comments and submitting the revised version of the manuscript. While I find the responses to comments and revisions are mostly acceptable, there are still quite a few technical concerns on the writing and, particularly, the presentation quality of some figures and tables. Below please see some specific examples.

Sincerely,

Hailong Wang

L31-33: Please synthesize the description of qualified present-day ERFs consistent in these two sentences.

L38-39: This sentence alone is not ideal to form a separate paragraph.

L40-42: This long sentence is ambiguous. Please revise.

L44: The “,” should be replaced with “.” for a complete sentence.

L103: “.” is missing at the end of the sentence.

L220-221: please use a better way to describe or define these variables than using the equal sign.

Fig.1: Please clarify in the caption what types of aerosols “aer” includes. It’s unclear why NH3-related ERF is placed at the right-most column.

Fig. 2: There is a typo in y-axis title “Radiative Flux” for all panels. I understand that there are different numbers of participating models in the different experiments/panels; however, it would still be nice to vertically align the same individual models in all panels (i.e., with a total of 8 models but leaving out any missing models in panel a, b, and c). In this way, all four panels can be made consistent in font and bar sizes. Same for Fig. 6.

Table 3: the column title “cs,af” needs to be made consistent with the notation used in the next (ERFcs,af?). Same for Table 5.

Table 4: I don’t see a column for IRFair/AOD that is described in the title.

Fig. 9: the title “Methane lifetime” is misleading. Please remove or use a more accurate one.