Dear authors,

Thank you for your revised manuscript. After reading it through I sent it to one of the previous reviewers, who recommends minor revisions to address a few small points, and I agree with them. These comments are as follows:

"This is the revised version of a paper that I reviewed a few months ago. The authors took into account all my comments and I recommend publication after they consider a few minor changes.
p.4 L98. Please provide a reference related to the “conventionally a square-shaped pulse” as I am not familiar with this formalism. If the reference of interest is Paschotta 2008 you can disregard this comment but I expect that more than one reference would support a well established convention.
p.6 L150. I think that just looking at the equations, I can understand how to go from Eq (12) to Eq (13) but the revised comment confuses me even more than the previous statement. The right hand side of the subtraction means βb(r) ? I think that it would be helpful to clarify the sentence or add more explanations.
p. 14 Fig. 6 Typo in “Theoritical”
p. 16 L270. I’m not sure I follow exactly what is done here so I elaborate on my understanding. When you occult the laser beam but the whole lidar is still on, then you measure both the background from the sun/artificial lights and the electronic noise. Consider that you could be in a dark room and switch bright lights on and off. When the light is off, you would measure the electronic noise (identical in principle to signal 2). When you switch the lights on, the electronic noise would not disappear. The way to combine electronic and background illumination could probably be the topic of a full technical report but considering an addition is acceptable. However, if you remove signal 1 and signal 2 from signal 3, you remove the electronic noise twice.
Please elaborate on this section and if necessary correct the data analysis procedure and the results.
p. 16 L272. You may consider to change “electronic noise of darkness” into “electronic noise” or “dark noise”.
p. 17 L280 – L281. Everything you say is true but this sentence could lead the reader to believe that the resolution of the system is 5 cm. The system can definitely detect the position of the plume within 5 cm, however the pulse duration will create correlations between the measurements in the order of 25 cm inside the plume. It’s not a key point of your study but I would suggest to modify this sentence.
p. 18 Table 4 L1. Unit should be sr not sr-1."

I do not expect that another round of review will be necessary after this as these are all fairly small matters and I hope will be easy to respond to. Please let you know if you have any questions, and I look forward to receiving the next version of your study.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Dear authors,

Thank you for your revised manuscript. I feel that you have addressed the reviewer's remaining comments and so, following my own reading, am pleased to accept this version of the manuscript for publication in AMT.

Best wishes,

Andrew