Dear Goutam and Matthias,

Please address the comments by reviewer 1 copy and pasted below. If these comments are not address the manuscript will not be suitable for publication on ESSD.

General Comments:
Thank you for authors’s revision. Unfortunately, the authors response all question, but little resolved the problems I raised. Especially some important results are still missing, e.g. vertical distribution of CCN, uncertainty of dataset and day-night difference. I do not expect authors resolve all problems about lidar retrieval of CCN. But lidar is very sensitive to aerosol particle and enviromental conditions, the nessacery and enough diccusion about the limitationes and undertainties must been provided here. It is responsibility to consider or discuss all possible uncertainties if authors want publish a available dataset. Therefore, I suggest this manuscript should be further revised.

Major Comments:
1. For previous Question 4: The CALIPSO track was change after September 2018. At least there is a difference in the observed area, which should be pointed out in the text.
2. For previous Question 9: For multiple layers of aerosols, the attenuation caused by the upper aerosol layer must influence the retrieval of CCN at lower layer. The author explains the LiDAR can penetrate most of aerosol layers, but how about heavy dust condition, which should be pointed out in the text? I know the CALIPSO data have been calibrated based on signal attenuation, but the related question is still existed. The effect of attenuation to CCN retrieval should been reminded in uncertainties discussion.
3. For previous Question 11: I am very surprise author say “We also believe that it will not impact themean state of the CCN variations significantly”. The signal-to-noise of CALIPSO during daytime and nighttime even have the difference at one magnitude. The consideration about sample size is not reason why author not consider the difference of retrieval between daytime and nighttime. Addtionally, the day and night CCN retrieval uncertainty should be different due to the different signal-to-noise of CALIPSO. At least, authers should provide a figure and dissusion about CCN retrieval during daytime and nighttime, separately. This is important message for readers to use this dataset, which should be pointed out in the text.
4. For previous Question 14: Line 208. The uncertainty indicators are so important. For monthly average data, the authors do not need to provide many percentiles data, but at least the standard deviation for each pixel also can provide some information for using data.
5. For previous Question 16: If the authors emphasize height resolved or 3D, it is necessary to provide a profile of CCN distribution or global CCN at some typical altitude levels. I do not understand authors annoucement the dataset is vertical, but not provide the vertical information. Maybe, authors remove the “height-resolved” from title.