Dear authors,

Thank you for your revised manuscript. After going through it with your Response to Reviewers, my impression is that you have addressed the reviewer comments sufficiently well.

My one technical comment is that on lines 110-111 you note (in new text to address a reviewer comment) you convert from radiance to reflectance to "remove" the effect of solar variation on brightness. While I understand what you did (and agree with the rationale), I am not sure that "remove" is the right word here. It is true that solar zenith angle modulates the overall brightness of the solar signal, but the scattering phase function is also dependent on solar zenith and azimuth angles because they influence scattering angle. I think this may have been in the reviewer's mind as well (i.e. are the scenes sampling a representative range of scattering angles). This could be a factor influencing cloud masking accuracy, particularly for optically-thinner clouds where the single scattering signal dominates. Of course the scattering angles for EMIT may differ too because the ISS is on a precessing orbit.

My suggestion is that you change this "remove" to "reduce", which I think conveys your main point about radiance vs. reflectance. It'd also be good to add a sentence or two noting the typical scattering angle ranges sampled by Hyperion for these scenes, and (if feasible) a comment on the range of scattering angles EMIT is expected to sample. I don't think further analysis is needed on the effects of scattering angle, but it would be good to document this for readers and for the future.

After this small change, I will be happy to accept your manuscript for publication in AMT. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Dear authors,

Thank you for making this further edit - I am pleased to accept this version for publication in AMT.

Best wishes,

Andrew