Dear authors,

thank your for revising your manuscript and carefuly responding to each of the referees's comments. I share the referees' opinion that your revisions are very convincing and improved the quality of the manuscript, which I think is now in good shape for publication in ACP. I would be happy to accept this study, providing that you address the remaining concerns of Referee #1 (see their comments).

To add on the referee's comment on the PSD ageraging: I find your initial response convincing, as it is clear that using 10-s averaging on HALO data would lead to covering very large cloud and potentially inhomogeneous cloud area. These would not be easy to deal with and would require setting up heavier data processing, which I don't think is necessary for your study; your approach seems reasonably sufficient for your purposes and there is no need to change it. Also you correctly mentioned that studies often simply use the 1-Hz data. These are all points you might want to highlight to better justify your choice for 2 s (around line 256). That being said, since you use an approach a bit in between more traditional methods (1 s or 10 s), I might also see how the referee's question might also be relevant and shared by more readers. In that sense, the study could indeed gain from a quick sensitivity analysis by comparing 1 s, 2 s and 10 s data over a small rather homogeneous cloud leg, if it is possible. Of course, no need to add this to the main manuscript or it risks to get too heavy - I find it well balanced now.

Regards,
Odran Sourdeval

Dear authors,

thank you for the careful responses to the referee's comments and in particular for further assessing the impact of the 2-s averaging (it is interesting to see potential advantages vs 1- or 10-s). I find the responses convincing and the changes to the manuscript relevant.

I am now happy to accept this revised manuscript for publication to ACP.

Regards,
Odran Sourdeval