Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for submitting tour research to AMT. Based on the recommendations of a sufficient number of independent referees, I have decided that your article can be published subject to minor revisions.

Please take into account the recommendations and questions of the very last referee report (report #1 from referee #4) and include also your responses to report #1 from referee #2 in your authors' response. Please also verify that you have taken into consideration all suggestions of report #1 of referee #1.

In addition to these requests, I would like to ask you to carefully revise the uncertainty budget (Tables 3 and 4) and the discussion of spectroscopic uncertanties and biases, which actually seem to be too optimistic. For example, I could not find any discussion of the isotopic abundance in HITRAN which differs from the composition of the V-PDB standard as a possible bias (please also give an authorative reference for V-PDB in line 99). Moreover, the relative uncertainty of 0.003% in the heading of Table 1 is a far too optimistic value for a line strength measurement even of the main isotopologue. In particular it is not supported by the reference referred to in the manuscript (Benner 2016), which states that the value has been derived as statistical error obtained from a least-squares fit, thus completely ignoring the dominant systematic uncertainty sources of the study. I suggest that you either use the uncertainty estimate from HITRAN or the estimate from a suitable study.

With best regards
Christof JANSSEN

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much again for submitting to AMT. I acknowledge that all requests have been fulfilled. There remain some minor corrections to be done before the manuscript can be published. I encourage you to do the changes listed below so that the document can proceed to the publication stage.

Best regards,
Christof Janssen

l17 "with an additional Doppler ability". This information reads a little bit like science slang. Maybe you could just delete it from the abstract or find a more appropriate phrasing.
l32 taken in -> taken from
l54. The phrase sounds a little bit strange. Please consider : Although such system seems to reach similar precision on d13C (< 0.2 ‰) than in situ sensor, the horizontal profiling and 2-D mapping of d13C field above the surface by Lidar will bring new information on sources/sinks pattern and origin. ->
Although such a system seems to reach a similar precision on d13C (< 0.2 ‰) than in situ sensors, the horizontal profiling and 2-D
mapping of the d13C field above the surface by Lidar will bring new information on the patterns and origins of sources and sinks.
l55 I wonder whether "Even" is the appropriate word to be used here and "stable water vapour" is strange terminology. You probably meant stable isotopologues of water .... Please consider : Moreover, the vertical profiling will help characterise the local and long-distance transport of CO₂, in a similar way than stable isotopologues of water vapour doalready (Hamperl et al., 2022).
l124 change "<<" using the corresponding symbol
l125 in the 2.05 band -> in the 2.05 μm band,
l125 "For one part" is confusing as there is no other part. Did you mean "partly" ?
l131 Note that isotopologue abundance taken in the ... gives -> Note that isotopologue abundances taken from the ... yield
l154 Both seeder l1 and l2 -> Both seeders, l1 and l2,
l155 "built with low pressured 80-cm path gas cell" -> "built with a 80 cm path gas cell" (no need to mention "low pressure" here, the pressures are indicated)
l155 and elsewhere in the manuscript: delete hyphen between number and unit (see https://www.atmospheric-measurement-techniques.net/submission.html#math )
Table2 Are units in the receiver characteristics correct ? What is a Real time 38.4 m range gate ? Shouldn't this be a temporal gate ? For readability, please separate signal processing elements by comma or insert a line break before Discrete Fourier Transform ...
l157 and others, please delete - as a
l159 Phrase is not clear. Is the Allan deviation better than 1 MHz between 10 s and 10 min ? Then I suggest to write it as such. One could theoretically imagine that the spectral precision gives a different result than the accuracy, but then a "respectively" would be needed.
l189 second flooor of LMD building -> second floor of the LMD building
l192 ratio -> ratios
l199 Doppler -> The Doppler
l246 errors on -> errors of the
l279 errors on -> errors of the
replace "error on" by "error of" throughout the manuscript
l157 delete "rough"
l301 DIAL equation -> the DIAL equation
l312 Assuming we can -> Assuming that we can
l314 which keep the numbers -> which keeps the numbers
l327 likely to be due ->likely due
l330 on the point of view -> from the point of view
l349 put "," before "as expected"
l366 delete ":"
l367 prevent us -> prevents us
l374 has been -> have been
l375 add "a" before "Monte_Carlo"
l382 precison around -> a precision around
l383 using -> using an
l384 avalanche photodiode -> avalanche photodiodes
l384 detector -> detectors
l416 Despite .... seems -> Despite .... seeming

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your corrected manuscript, which now is in excellent shape to be published. The manuscript can now proceed to the publication stage.

Thank you again for submitting your paper to AMT. Please also consider AMT for future article submissions, and I would be extremely grateful if you could further support Copernicus journals by agreeing to act as a referee when requested.

With kind regards,
Christof JANSSEN