Dear Authors,

Following the evaluation of the referee comments, author's responses, and the updated manuscript I consider that the reviews were done appropriately. No re-evaluation by the referees is required.

I would however like to draw your attention to the comments which I, as the associate Editor, handed over to you in the course of the pre-review in advance to the actual review process. In order to proceed with the production process, I kindly ask you to also address these points in your updated manuscript. Find these comments below:

From: 04 Jul 2022 - Associate Editor initial decision
Dear Authors,

thanks for submitting your manuscript for AMT.
I've read the manuscript and find it generally suited for public peer review. Nevertheless, I identified some content-related issues and also few typos. I kindly ask you to consider these points in the later review process.

See the items below:
1) Case studies:
- please provide exact date and time of the birdbath scans analyzed in the 5 case studies which are presented in the manuscript. This is a basic requirement for making reproducibility possible (e.g., simulation of the case studies with models). You would just have to replace your statements "in MONTH YEAR" by "on DAY MONTH YEAR, xx:xx UTC" (or provide a time span, if more appropriate).

2) 'polarimetric variables':
- This term appears several times in the manuscript. I suggest to be more specific, as it is usually referred to the H-V-ratio (difference in log-space). If you want to continue to use 'polarimetric variables', provide a thorough introduction of this term at the beginning of the methods section.
- Please, also provide a statement why the standard polarimetric variables such as ZDR or RHO_HV are not suited for the presented filtering approach.
- Associated to this statement, also the legend of Figs. 3 and 4 are misleading. 'Difference' should be replaced by a more specific term from which the source of data can be inferred.

3) Data availability:
- Please try to follow the guidelines given here: https://www.atmospheric-measurement-techniques.net/submission.html#manuscriptcomposition --> "prepare your assets"
- If you cannot provide data FAIR, you are requested to provide a reasoning why you cannot do so (e.g, perhaps regulations by DWD?)


4) Typos & Minor:
- general usage of 'remit': Are you sure that this is the right term for a radar-related publication? I could not find any literature source using this word in radiative transfer. It seems to be a financial term.
- Line 51: better use 'along the line of sight of' instead of 'toward'
- Line 69: "birdbath" instead of "birdbatch"
- Line 92: Please provide the coordinates of MOHp. Please also provide the coordinates and altitude of the other investigated sites.
- Line 235: "weather"
- Line 266: Doppler spectrum of which parameter?
- Fig. 4: The values B1,B2, C1,C2 should be shown in the Figure and be mentioned in the caption.
- Fig. 6: The legend of Fig. 6a is incomplete (green and orange dots and lines)

Dear Authors,

thank you for the prompt reply and for incorporation of the requested revisions (as far as still applicable after implementation of the Referee comments).

I consider your manuscript publishable and kindly forward it to the production office.
Just one comment: Please note the minor typo in line 51 of the manuscript: replace 'site' by 'sight'