Dear authors,

good work! But please consider the following minor points before final acceptance:

line 105: aircraft
115: does the inclusion of Raman scattering affect the accuracy or rather raise the accuracy?
125: new data on optical properties...
134: unclear. Do you mean: can be used to simulate the effect on radiation of variability in size distributions?
302 ff: In contrast to ... neither ... nor is it capable of ...
316: at the surface
327 ff: what does it mean: the atmosphere has to have a vertical resolution? Please reformulate.

351: "Mystic is a physically correct model which does not include any approximations." This is a strong and bold statement! If you think, you need such a strong statement I would prefer to see some background information. In which way is it physically correct (what do you exactly mean with "physically correct"?). How sure are you that a Monte Carlo Simulation (that must necessarily be terminated somehow at 10^n photons) is NOT an approximation? I see, that we are entering philosophical discussions here, but strong statements usually evoke strong reactions. Some lines later it already sounds more modest, when speak of "uncertainty range". And again later, "the accuracy of MYSTIC depends only on...". I agree with this wording, but to my view it contradicts your first statement.

357: in 3D model domains.
363: not accurate enough

Table 2: correct word-wrap.

Eq. 4 and text following it: is this effective radius r_eff indeed what it usually is in radiative transfer or is it just a parameter, unfortunately termed effective radius? Usually the effective radius can be computed as the ratio of two moments of the size distribution. If this is the r_eff in your eq. 4, then there is perhaps an inconsistency, because I would be very surprised if the ratio of these moments (mean volume divided by mean cross section, times a constant, see your eq. A3) would just result in r_eff, when r_eff is used in the definition of the gamma function and my surprise would even grow when this happens although you cut-off the integrals at arbitrarily chosen limits of 0.02 and 8 times r_eff. Please clarify.

783: and that will be written...

Fig. 7, bottom: the lines are a bit flimsy, the colours can hardly be identified. Can you please improve.

908: "the ozone band ... is colder". Please rewrite: "the ozone band... has lower brightness temperature..." or similar. Also a few lines later, "colder altitude" sounds ugly.

937: Please avoid this sloppy language ("spectrum is colder").

1102: radiative transfer simulations of the Earth atmosphere. (Evidently, all simulations are performed IN the atmosphere, unless some are performed on the ISS).