Lee et al. [2011] (hereafter L11) investigated the winter anomaly on a global scale using the electron density profiles acquired during the previous solar minimum by the Global Positioning System (GPS) radio occultation experiment payload on board the Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) satellites. The comment mentioned that L11 did not credit former studies for the investigation of the altitudinal variation of the winter anomaly. Missing citation of those studies was our mistake. However, we claimed nowhere that our report is the first investigation of the altitudinal variation of the phenomenon. One of the references that the comment provided [Boenkova and Mednikova, 1972] was written with Russian and not available.The comment mentioned that L11 did not provide references for the description of the nighttime increase of the h m F 2 and N m F 2 . The increase of the h m F 2 and N m F 2 at night by the effect of neutral wind is already well known, as the comment stated, so references were not provided.The comment claimed that L11 repeatedly mentioned the effect of "vibrationally excited N 2 and O 2 number density." It was mentioned twice (paragraphs [5] and [21]) to introduce previous studies that explained the winter anomaly in association with the vibrationally excited N 2 and O 2 number density. L11 clearly stated that this effect varies with the solar activity. So we disagree with the claim: "There is no need to mention vibrationally excited N 2 for the interpretation of the seasonal anomaly under solar minimum conditions."The comment mentioned that the formation of the F 2 layer is nothing to do with the solar EUV radiation, so our description of the dependence of the electron density on the solar zenith angle is incorrect. We do not agree with this comment. The dependence of the ionization on the solar zenith angle is obvious from the Chapman function, as presented in many textbooks (see Figure