Dear authors,

Thanks a lot for taking into account reviewers comments.
I will sent the revised manuscript (when submitted) to another round of review.
However, I would be happy if you would consider adding to the revised manuscript some of the details you are giving in your reply to RC1 first main comment (mainly about the novelty and originality). I also think it would be nice to update the colormaps in the two figures that are using rainbow (alternative colormaps can be found e.g. here : https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/elegantfigures/2013/08/06/subtleties-of-color-part-2-of-6/ )

Best regards,

Marie Dumont

Dear Authors,

Thanks for your effort and work on the paper.
I feel that now the paper will be ready for publication after the minor revisions below (I am copying below the referee report) :

"I apologize for the long delay in my response. I appreciate the detailed response to my comments. The authors have put some effort to revise their manuscript and I think it has improved. However, there remain a few comments listed below that were not fully addressed in my opinion.

#1 "MCD43 provides albedo over all land masses, whereas M*D10A1 provides only albedo of the pixels that are detected as snow covered." I could not understand the response of the authors. A map illustrating one of the cases mentioned by the authors before/after the interpolation would help. In addition this issue should be much clearly acknowledge in the manuscript, I think that the added sentence is not sufficient.

#2 "The improvements in MCD11 albedo with respect to the original product are very small (about 0.01 RMSE, Tab.2)." Since the authors agree I believe they should also make it clear it in the manuscript and emphasize that the main benefit of this work is the gapfilling.

#3 ""Daily averages" is not the correct wording". From the first version of the manuscript I understood that the daily albedo was computed as the ratio of the daily sums of incoming and reflected radiation. From the author response ("Daily averages were calculated from hourly averages if at least 20 hourly values were available") I understand that the daily albedo was computed from the average of the hourly albedos. This should be clarified because it is not the same. The second method gives equal weight to albedo measurements in the morning or in the evening. The first method is less affected by low sun elevation periods.

#4 "median based statistical rejection of outliers.": the outlier rejection paragraph remains a bit obscure to me. I understand that values outside the interval [median-STD ; median-STD] are rejected, except if the STD is lower than x% of the median (where x ranges from 1% to 4%).

#5 "results are not directly comparable (daily vs. monthly)". It would have been interesting to provide the results at the daily time step too (which is much more informative and discriminant in terms of RMSE) but I leave it up to the authors to consider if they have the time!

#6 "Fig 3: a similar figure can be found in Gascoin et al 2017". If the authors keep the figure then they should explain in their paper (not only in the response the reviewer) what is here that was not there."

Thanks a lot,
Best regards,

Marie Dumont

Dear Authors,

Thanks a lot for your work on a new version of the manuscript.
The manuscript is now ready for publication I think.

Best regards,

Marie Dumont