Dear Chris,

as you might have seen from the referees new report, he asks for a more detailed response to his first review following the ACP guidelines:
(1) comments from referees/public, (2) author's response, and (3) author's changes in manuscript.
so that he can see from the answers which changes were made in the manuscript. The referee stated that 'I will re-review the manuscript when I can more clearly see how my concerns from the first review have been addressed.'

I would be glad if you could provide this quickly so that we can proceed with the decision on the paper.

Best wishes, Martina

Dear Chris,

I'm happy to tell you that your article is now accepted subject to one minor technical correction (see below). So please follow the instructions of the editor, then the article can be uploaded to ACP.

Best wishes, Martina

Referee reoprt:
The article has been rewritten for clarity and is substantially more clear. Useful information is provided about the statistics of Greenland fogs, and important feature for understanding the radiation balance over the Greenland ice sheet. It is commendable the effort required to obtain these difficult measurements. I only have one minor suggestion which is that Figure 3 looks weird, and I think would look much more sensible if it were plotted on a log-linear scale. Negative exponentials drop of more quickly than power-laws, which is what seems to be the case in the data. Also, it looks like the binning is linear rather than logarithmic, so that would need to be corrected in any case.