I have recieved input from two reviewers; one recommended "rejection "and the other "major revision". Analyzing both reviewers comments they both appear to think the original manuscript was lacking mainly in two aspects: 1) Putting the results in a longer climatological perspective, and; 2) A more in-depth analysis and assessment of the physics leading up to the results. One reviewers also had a number of metodological comments on how the measurements were treted and how the analysis was carried out.

Reading the author's response to both reviewers in detail and browsing the track-change version of the revised manuscript, I conclude that the authors have made a major revision. They have attempted to expand the scope with a longer climatological perspective. Hampered with a lack of a complete data record for the longer period, the authors have attempted to use what they have of other observations that can be used in the interpretation. There is also a substantially extended text and new figures in support of the analysis on the underlying physics and an added new discussion section. The authors also provided a slightly extended description of the data and analysis methods used.

My main objection at this point is in for the Conclusions; this section that does not fulfil the specifications for publishing in ACP. The authors should avail themsleves of the author instructions that clearly indicates that a conclusion section must be included that encapsulates all of the following:

* Summary: Summarize the main results and relate them to the objectives, questions, or hypotheses of the study. The summary should include the main quantitative results.

* Synthesis/interpretation: Explain and interpret the results concisely to enable readers to make sense of them as a whole.

* Comparison and context: Compare the results with previous studies to put them in context. Explain consistencies, inconsistencies, and advances in knowledge.

* Caveats and limitations: State how these affect confidence in the overall results, and where future work is needed.

* Implications: Discuss what the results mean for our understanding of the state and/or behaviour of the atmosphere and climate, which is the main requirement for publication in ACP.

I am therefore not position to accept this manuscript until a proper conclusion section is presented.

Like mentioned in the previous decision, I recieved input from two reviewers; one recommended "rejection "and the other "major revision". When analyzing the reviewer's comments I found that they both appeared to think the original manuscript was lacking mainly in two aspects:

1) putting the results in a longer climatological perspective, and;
2) having a more in-depth analysis and assessment of the physics leading up to the results.

One of the reviewers also had a number of metodological comments on how the measurements was treated and how the analysis was carried out.

Reading the author's first responses to both reviewers in detail, and browsing the track-change version of the revised manuscript, I concluded that the authors really had made a major revision and attempted to expand the scope with a longer climatological perspective, although hampered by a lack of a complete data record for the longer period. In doing so, the authors attempted to use what they have of other observations in their intrepretation. There was also a substantially extended text and new figures in support of the analysis on the underlying physics and had added a new discussion section. The authors also provided a slightly extended description of the data and analysis methods used. My main objection at that point was concenring the Conclusions policy; the conclusion section lacked most of the details that are required for publishing in ACP.

The new version fulfils these criteria and I'm happy to now accept the paper!