This revised version addresses the concerns about the suitability of the paper for the journal expressed in the first set of reviews. This has improved its presentation as a data description article for the Earth System Science Data journal. In particular, the shift in focus is evident in the change of title (mention of satellites has been dropped) and the detailed information provided on the sites, instrumentation and calibration procedures. Generally, I find the submission more in line with the objectives of a ESSD data description paper. However, I continue to have some concerns about two of the main elements that were mentioned in the review of the first version, namely (1) the extent to which the data set, per se, is the focus of the presentation and (2) having a transparent account of which calibrations were applied over the full period of the publically available data set. On the first point, I appreciate the author’s view that describing some characteristics of the data, particularly the presence of cloud enhancement, will assist users in proper use of the data. In recognition of this important consideration of the data, the sections on diurnal variation and cloud fraction should be the first parts of section 4. Like the first version, this revised version still leads off section 4 with a lengthy section about the derivation of the satellite/model and intercomparison with the data. Within the three sections, numbers 3-5, the exposition of the satellite data set and its comparison to the Bentham and radiometers occupies 40% of the text (counting the 15 lines of the conclusion which basically just restate the results in section 4.1). This seems out of proportion to its importance in guiding use of the data.
In a paper about a data set the primary focus should be its characteristics, per se, thus I recommend putting sections 4.2 and 4.3 before 4.1. Indeed, having the characteristics of cloudiness described first assists in explaining some of the discrepancies with the satellite/model results. The satellite/model comparison section should be condensed. The comparison should focus on the radiometer results, since that is what is in the published data set. I don’t see what is shown in Figures 3 and 4 that is not also shown in the appendix figure A1 and A2. The latter are more relevant, since the Bentham data shown in Figures 3 and 4 are not included in the published data set.
On calibration, I appreciate the detailed explanation of each of the three types of calibration. But only two of these calibrations are mentioned in Table 3 showing the caibrations by instrument: manufacturer’s and Bentham. The author’s response to reviewers states that in addition to the present Bentham calibration, the manufacturer’s and Davos calibration were also used for the Saint-Denis radiometer.
A more complete accounting of calibrations covering the whole published record is needed. This could be conveyed in the paper by using different color codes in Figure 2 for periods covered by different procedures. More importantly, there are some inconsistencies between calibration procedures in terms of how corrections are applied as a function of SZA and ozone (no ozone adjustment for Bentham calibrations [?]). Have the authors examined what are the possible effects of these different calibration procedures on the record? Are there offsets that have been introduced in the record when calibration/correction procedures are changed? Lines 240-245 describe differences in the corrected UVI values between the Bentham calibration and manufacturer’s/Davos calibrations. What (if anything) was done to the record to adjust for these differences in the UVI record?
Finally, it appears as though some of the data being reported is from instruments that, for various reasons, were overdue for recalibration at the time the observations were made but are scheduled for new calibrations (according to Table3). Should data users expect a possible round of corrections to these data sets when the “end cals” for a deployment period are known?
Line 250 –“ The data files are then homogenised in order to be recalibrated.”
Unclear what is means to homogenize data
Lin 470 “The UVI distribution is also available in Figure 6d.“
Is it meant Figure 7d?
Line 474 “The difference in CF in the four seasons is not statistically significant, especially for the JJA and SON seasons.”
Line 479 “CF diurnal profiles are quite different between the DJF and JJA seasons, with DJF showing CF higher than the annual mean while JJA shows CF lower than the annual mean.”
These two statements which both appear to refer to Figure 7a are inconsistent. The first one is the one that seems correct. The appearance of the lines in Figure 7a actually shows JJA higher than the annual mean.
Appendix – The subplots with the data distributions for X and Y variables should be described in the figure captions