Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript. Of the two reviewers of the initial version, one had previously questioned the value of publication, but both had only fairly minor technical issues with the manuscript. After research on my end I do see the value in publication of the technique as I feel it does contain sufficient novelty, and because I think it is important to have codes documented in the easily-available literature. I felt that your text was clear about placing your work in the context of the wider field itself.

After reading through I sent your revised manuscript to one of the original reviewers; they feel and I agree that reviewer comments have been addressed adequately. They have two very minor points remaining for you to consider, with which I agree. I am therefore pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in AMT pending the following technical corrections:

“1. To be more precise, this study is about both microphysical and optical properties, not just microphysical properties. Optical thickness is generally not considered a microphysical property, at least in my view. Please clarify.

“2. Line 473: what is meant by “multiple clouds are present”? Multiple cloud layers perhaps?”

My feeling is that (1) can be accomplished by including “and optical” in the title and/or a handful of places in the abstract and body text. For (2), from the context in your Conclusion section, it seems like replacing “clouds” with “cloud layers” would improve the clarity. I will leave the precise wording t oyu.

These corrections can be made when you upload your manuscript files to the production office, and do not need further review.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best wishes,

Andrew