Thank you very much for including a revised manuscript in your response to the reviewers. It would have been enough to respond to the comments first and later submit a revised manuscript. But of course, a revised manuscript can help to make your points.

Based on your responses and the revised manuscript, my impression is that major comment #1 by reviewer number #1 and point #1 by reviewer #2 should be addressed by additional changes in the in the manuscript. The motivation for looking at ascents needs to be better explained in the manuscript. For example, you could include at least one or two sentences based on your response to reviewer #1 around line 104. If the motivation for your approach is made clear in the manuscript, personally I would not insist on changing the title, since it seems to express what you are intending to say. In general, however, it is often good to clarify things that are unclear in the manuscript, since not all readers may refer to the public discussion. Please note that there will be another opportunity to submit a revised manuscript and that this revised manuscript will be sent out for another round of reviews.

I also noted that the first sentence of your acknowledgment seems to imply that your case study qualifies for the criterion in Raveh-Rubin (2017). If it is so, this should be explained (including a few details) in the main body of the manuscript and not in the acknowledgment section and there should definitely be a proper citation of Raveh-Rubin (2017).

Thank you very much for submitting a revised manuscript. We received one reviewer report which you can find below. I agree with this report. Further revisions are necessary before your manuscript can be published. Because the overall assessment of your manuscript by the reviewers has been positive, I strongly encourage you to revise your manuscript based on the suggestions in this report.

Reviewer Report #1:
The authors have responded to most of my minor comments in a satisfactory manner. However, some critical issues prevent the manuscript from being published in its present form, as detailed in the following.

General concern:
The response to my general concern is not clear enough, which also means that the motivation for the analysis of tropopause ascent (rather than tropopause drops) is not outlined well in the manuscript itself. In many of the cases in the manuscript, as well as in Hocker et al 2007, the intrusions are associated with a drop+ascent of the tropopause. I do not fully understand the reference to other atmospheric processes in the response, or how it supports the argument that the intrusions are not related to tropopause drops. Especially the following sentence is unclear: “In other words, various atmospheric processes (and the accompanied tropopause drops) are important conditions for intrusions (or for the strong downdrafts in our study), but intrusion events are not close related to tropopause drops”. It is also very confusing to note in the response that the intrusions and the downdrafts are the same thing, while in other places it is mentioned that the downdrafts precede the tropopause ascent and the intrusions. Therefore, a clear distinction of the terms should be made early on in the introduction. In addition, the word “predictor” should be replaced by “diagnostic”, for example as it appears in the response “Therefore, we think the strong downdrafts just preceding the rapid tropopause ascent (black bands shown in Fig.13) may serve as a valuable predictor for possible stratospheric intrusions” and in the revised manuscript in line 265 to avoid such confusion.
I suggest that the authors revise this part of the text, to convey their motivation better, including English language editing. This issue seems to arise also from the comments of referee #2, and the editor, and deserves careful attention.

Specific major comments:
2. In the revised manuscript you still state on lines 311-312:“Trajectory results further support the evidence of possible stratospheric intrusions that closely related with the main downdrafts”, even though the authors agree that this is not supported by the trajectory analysis.

Specific minor comments:
1. Please enhance and edit the English, as for the general concern above.
Comments 7 and 9: The high-PV at mid levels is not accompanied by high ozone according to Fig. 8. Therefore, it is probable that this is not a major stratospheric intrusion, but rather a diabatically-produced high PV, or a different kind of advection of high PV, but not a clear stratospheric intrusion. This is especially true because the existence of stratospheric intrusions is not supported by the trajectory analysis. This issue is not addressed in the revised manuscript as it should.

Thank you very much for your reply to the reviewer comments and for submitting a revised version of your manuscript.

Suggestions for minor edits:

l. 15: significant -> important
l. 18 -> In the light of present understanding, using VHF radars to identify possible stratospheric intrusions still remain unclear -> However, at present several open questions remain regarding the use of VHF radar to identify possible stratospheric intrusions.
l. 21, l. 22 perhaps use m/s consistently throughout the manuscript (for example also in line 236)
l. 31: will gain -> helps to gain
l. 38: vertically stable -> stably
l. 42: just on the -> the
l. 55: are -> is
l. 56: but are less, if any -> but is less often, if at all (?)
l. 58 3- -> three-
l. 60: yield -> obtain a
l. 74: seasons -> season
l. 92: researches -> research
l. 104: The research by Hocking et al., (2007) have achieved a development in this issue and reported -> Hocking et al. (2007) reported
l. 105: please define what "RT" means already here (it is only defined further below in line 157)
l. 109: The reverse is also true ... : here it is not clear whether this statement is still based on Hocking et al. (2007). If it is, it would be good to cite Hocking et al. (2007) once more at the end of this sentence. If not, please explain why this is so.
l. 110: intrusions -> intrusion
l. 110: noted -> note
l. 120: processes -> situations
l. 137: (Ottersten, 1969) -> Ottersten (1969)
l. 175: is of -> is
l. 180: CH4 -> CH_4 (the "4" should be a subscript)
l. 187: present -> the present
l. 221: please check how this data should be cited. I think that the usage of this data might be governed by the NCDC use agreement available via https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.olrcdr.interp.html.
l. 225: side -> site (also elsewhere)
l. 239: remained -> created (?)
l. 240: where they should be normally high value ->where normally one would expect to find a high value
l. 249: omit "exactly" (I think "well" is enough here and "exactly well" sounds odd to me)
l. 252: cyclone -> cyclones
l. 278: a verb seems to be missing after "is"
l. 306: one thing is -> it is
l. 307: are -> have; observed -> were observed
l. 312: masses parcel -> mass parcel is
l. 317: that -> that are
l. 320: transport -> are transported
l. 322: transportation -> transport
l. 370: Present -> The present
l. 379: majority -> the majority of
l. 409: is served -> served
l. 427: checking -> commenting on (?)
l. 429: thanks -> thank