I have my own comments and those of two reviewers. I've uploaded to you my comments that were annotated on your revised manuscript. I also provided you with comments by one of the reviewers. Below are comments from the second reviewer. Please revise your manuscript accordingly. Hopefully this won't be to difficult for you. You can email me anytime with questions you might have in the revision. Best of luck! Andy

The authors added lots of new materials to address the comments made by four reviewers, and cleared some of the concerns. The manuscript is improved significantly after revision. However, several major points raised in my previous review are still not addressed well. In addition, the newly added Lagrangian model results are crucial to this research and it would be nice to include part of them in the paper. Therefore I recommend major revision.

1. (Previous comment #4). It would be really helpful to include a simple figure for comparison of fitting using full and incomplete gamma distribution. The models are using integrated moments of gamma distribution doesn’t guarantee that full gamma distribution should be used for fitting of partially observed PSDs. I am not convinced that using incomplete gamma distribution can always get similar values and relations of gamma distribution parameters. Just imagine fitting a PSD without the mode diameter included as an extreme example…Adding a simple figure of comparisons will prove the validity of the use in this paper if they do not make huge differences.

2. (Previous comment #6). The equally-realizable volume of gamma distribution parameters may be added in Fig. 10 for a single example point to support the conclusion that the trajectories cover a much wider region. The volume may also partly quantify the uncertainty of the “pseudo forces” the authors want to illustrate.

3. (Previous comments #7, #8 and the newly added materials in response to reviewer #2). The “pseudo-forces”, or microphysical processes as I prefer, definitely change the PSDs and their moments (e.g., number concentration, mass content, etc.). How exactly they change the PSD gamma distribution parameters, which are quantitive descriptions of PSDs, are the novel part of this paper. Therefore, I recommend compiling the Lagrangian model results into Fig. 3 (or later) to present the effects of “pseudo-force”. The field campaign datasets may not be ideal to examine the linkage between gamma-distribution phase space and “pseudo-forces” as several reviewers worried, but the Lagrangian modeling greatly helps for the illustration purpose. By the way, the bin-scheme simulated PSDs may not be shaped like gamma distribution. The authors are welcome to present several simulated PSDs and fitted PSDs to disapprove me.