I thank the authors for taking up the suggestions of the reviewers. The paper is now considerably easier to understand as a result. I do, however, have a few additional comments, most of which relate to language. I do not need to see another version of the manuscript.

1. Lines 43-44: I suggest rewriting as “…at the ocean-atmosphere interface
is important both for the solution of the radiative transfer model within the water column and for the development of…”
2. Line 142: “from the topmost 10-m ocean layer”, not “of”
3. Lines 163-165: These are essentially a repeat of lines 149-150. These could perhaps be deleted, and the next sentence rewritten to begin “Data analysis covered the time period shown in Fig.3, using datasets from…”
4. Line 233: “minute” not “minutes” in both places.
5. Line 346: “In other words…” not “other terms”
6. Lines 362-363: “It is worth mentioning that in the present case, since IND covaries with…”
7. Line 400: “within the water column”
8. In response to reviewer 2, you stated that you would add the references to the work of Bozzo et al. and Rontu et al., but I don’t see these anywhere in the text nor in the reference list.
9. In response to reviewer 3, point 20, you stated that you would include the sentence “The improvement of the model skill at BOUSSOLE…is probably the most important parameter affecting skill.” Yet you don’t say this explicitly. As this is a really important point, perhaps you could rewrite lines 466-467 to accentuate this, for example: “The coarse resolution of cloud cover likely affects the model skill at both seasonal and intra-monthly time-scales. This is shown by the improvement in model skill at BOUSSOLE when variability between days is filtered out.”

Thanks for making those changes. I hope the paper receives the attention it ought to.