Very good response to reviewer comments, thank you.

A few additional questions / comments:

1) Lines 248, 249: Typically meteorologists use pyranometers for shortwave (VIS) measurements but pyrgeometers for longwave (IR) measurements. At station BF the authors itemize these separate measurement systems. K&Z CNR1 sensors used at other stations include both a pyranometer and a pyrgeometer. Figure 3 implies a full four-component radiation measurement for all stations? In that case, the text here seems incorrect or at least of insufficient detail.

2) The data availability section (Section 4, line 342) is not correct. According to earlier text, the authors applied standard quality control procedures to EC data (section 3.3) at most stations, including QC flags (which varied at least for station BF). In Section 4, however, authors make no reference to QC of EC data? Something missing here.

3) Line 355, 356 "absence of missing data". The value of '100' indicates no missing data? Or, the value of '100' indicates that periods of missing data were not identified? Need clarification. One needs to read legend for figure S1 to understand that '100' indicates complete continuous data, with no missing data.

4) Data availability figures in supplement prove useful. Because Copernicus does not archive supplementary material, include these instead as an appendix to main text?

5) Manuscript still needs an overall uncertainty table. E.g. Table 2 but with uncertainties (sensor-specific, site-specific, operation-specific) for each measurement at each site. Greater than 95% operation of most sensors at most heights in 2009 at NAMORS does not mean those data are useful! Authors provide only presence / absence while users need performance uncertainties. Cautions about using (or not using) raw data are not sufficient.

6) Line 347: "missidng" ??

Thank you for positive changes!