Dear Dr. Borsdorff et al.

Thank you for submitting your revised version and response to the reviewer's comments. There are few minor comments (please see below) that I would like you to address. I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Best Regards,

Lok Lamsal
Associate Editor, AMT

============
Note: For my own convenience, I am reporting comments based on your response to the reviewers. It appears to me that these suggested changes are applicable to the revised manuscript.

Bullet 2, response for Reviewer #1: Missing “of” after “because” in “..for high clouds because the atmospheric shielding..”

Bullet 2, response for Reviewer #1: Revise this statement: “Applying the column averaging kernels of the cloudy-sky retrievals to MOZAIC/IAGOS measurements significantly improve the comparison with SCIAMACHY retrievals and so supports the error interpretation by (de Laat et al., 2012) but also demonstrates the data quality of SCIAMACHY cloudy-sky retrievals.”
Suggestion: “Applying the column averaging kernels of the cloudy-sky retrievals to MOZAIC/IAGOS measurements significantly improves the comparison with SCIAMACHY retrievals, supports the error interpretation by de Laat et al. (2012), and demonstrates the data quality of SCIAMACHYcloudy-sky retrievals.”

Bullet 7, response for Reviewer #1: Change “optical” to “optically” in “..considering cloudy-sky retrievals under optical thick low and high cloud conditions..”

Bullet 7, response for Reviewer #1: There might be unnecessary “be” in “..Indonesia show cloudy-sky retrievals be in a majority ..”

Bullet 3, response for Reviewer #2: Please change “absent” to “absence” in “..true column (i.e. ignoring e_ects of the column averaging kernel) in absent of local sources of CO. "

Bullet 4, response for Reviewer #2: Please revise this statement for clarity. “For varying cloud height and due to the shielding of the atmosphere below the cloud, the data may be used in future work to discriminate the vertical distribution of CO in the atmosphere, e.g. by means of data assimilation. "

Bullet 5, response for Reviewer #2: Please consider replacing “temporal dependent radiometric” to either “time-dependent radiometric” or “temporal dependence of radiometric”.

Bullet 7, response for Reviewer #2: I suggest making changes in “..occasionally several procent (Landgraf et al., 2016) and becomes marginal for ..” as “..occasionally several percent (Landgraf et al., 2016), but becomes marginal for..”

Bullet 12, response for Reviewer #2: I am fine with your response, but appropriate statements are necessary in the manuscript to address reviewer’s comment.

Bullet 16, response for Reviewer #2: “lead to” may better replace “provide” in "The null-space does not provide a problem for application..”. Please check if you meant “principal” in “..does not impose principle limitation..”.

Bullet 19, response for Reviewer #2: It looks like this comment is not addressed in the manuscript, although you have a response for the reviewer’s comment.

Bullet 24, response for Reviewer #2: Please replace “found” by “observed” in “..are not found by SCIAMACHY.”

Page 1, line 19 in abstract: Please replace “add” by “adds”.

Page 5, line 22: “of the Sahara” => “over the Sahara”.