Dear Authors,

I hope you all are in good health and spirit.

The two anonymous reviewers have returned their comments on your response and revised manuscript. While referee # 1 offered no major comments on the revision but thinks that the paper covered a lot of basic discussions and equations which can be omitted or shortened with appropriate references. The referee # 2, along with several minor corrections, has also noticed that the format of the paper should be improved to match with a concise research article rather than that of a textbook chapter. The minor comments made by referee #2 are appended below.

Please address these minor concerns raised by both reviewers, prepare a revision, and submit it to the AMT online portal. Once the revision is received, I will make the final decision on your manuscript.

In case of any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Hiren Jethva
Associate Editor, AMT



Minor comments from Referee # 2

I agree, the revised manuscript reads better than the previous version. However, I think the organization/structure of the manuscript still needs to be improved before it can be accepted for a publication. Also, I am afraid the authors are persistently aiming for a textbook chapter (format) rather than a concise research article discussing the regional aerosol characteristics over the site using direct and derived products. In view of these concerns, I am providing the below mentioned comments/suggestions.
Comments (in no specific order):
1. BOA, ATM, TOA are first mentioned in Line 173, but are defined latter in Line 354.
2. Section 5.4 and 5.10 needs to be together at the end and before the section for comparison with satellite observations.
3. Line 375: ‘increase observed in AODs’. Please refer to the figure.
4. Please include all long-term trends of aerosol parameters in one section. For example, sections 5.3, 5.5 and 5.6 should be merged in section 5.9.
5. Lines 393 – 401 are more relevant in the seasonal variations section.
6. Lines 472 – 475: Repeated sentence – “Similar analysis performed ............ anthropogenic pollution etc”.
7. Please move the section 5.8 to the beginning – immediately after the composite average description of the aerosol parameters.
8. For the section 5.9 – figure 13 and the table 3 are sufficient. Figures 14, 15, 16 are NOT really adding anything to the main content and can be or placed as additional/supplementary material.
9. Ideally I would suggest the organization of section 5 to be:
a. Composite average of aerosol properties
b. Seasonal average of aerosol properties
c. Seasonal variation in aerosol types
d. Long-term trends in aerosol properties
e. Aerosol Radiative forcing (including trends in ARF)
f. Comparison with satellite observations
Among these, the first two (a & b) are very well documented by the previous studies in the literature. Please use brevity and condense the content appropriately to the results.
10. In section 5.11, what spatial extent of satellite pixels are used in the comparison for a given AERONET observation?
11. Please include the explanation for all points raised in the previous review in the main text.
12. Finally, please check for the overall consistency in the structure and flow of the manuscript.