Dear authors,

many thanks for the revised manuscript. Before the manuscript can be recommended for publication further clarifications are needed.

1. It is not easy to follow all the answers to the referees, as the changes made in the manuscript are not highlighted. For examples, the answers to Reviewer #1 cannot be followed easily.
2. Page 3, line 10-14. Clarification has been done.
3. Page 3, line 10. Climatological period is specified to be from 1979 to 2017.
4. Page 3, line 13. Clarification for the ranges of values has been done.
6. Page 3, line 24. Clarification for short-term ozone loss have been done.
7. Page 3, line 30. Short-term period of ozone loss is clarified.

It is now clear which specific additions were made in response to the Referees points.

Could the authors therefore please highlight those additions in the manuscript or extend the answers to both Referees, and also check that the line numbering is correct for the revised manuscript.

2. In the answers to Referee #1 the authors have added colored figures, which however are not included in the manuscript. Please add those in the revised version (it is understood this was the intention).

3. Generally, all figures, in particular Figs. 1, 2 and 3 should be included with print resolution, i.e. 300 dpi or better.

We are looking forward to receiving the revised manuscript in due time.

Thanks a lot.

Best regards,
Margit Haberreiter
Topical Editor

Dear Yury M. Timofeyev and co-authors,

meanwhile we have received the reviewers comments for the revised manuscript. We are very happy that by taking into account the minor revision requested the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
In addition, may we ask you to have the manuscript carefully checked for typos, ideally by an English native speaker.

We kindly ask you to resubmit the revised manuscript within the next 2 weeks.

Sincerely,
Margit Haberreiter
Topical Editor

Dear Yury M. Timofeiyef and co-authors,

thank you very much for considering the final comments by the reviewers and the careful proofreading of the manuscript. I am delighted to inform you that the manuscript is recommended for publication.

I have just a few minor corrections:

Section 1: last line: modeling -> modelling
Page 3, line 12: climatologically average values -> climatologically averaged values
Figures: I would recommend to not use bold font for the x and y axis labels, but possibly the same font size as in the text, particularly for Figure 1, and Figure 2 (which has a smaller font than Figure 3).
In Figure 5 the title of the panels is hard to read. Could the grey font be changed to black?
Figure captions in gerneral: I recommend not to use the bold font for the text of the figure caption. Please double check the Guidelines for authors.

Thank you very much for these final editorial changes.

Best regards,
Margit Haberreiter
Topical Editor