This study reports initial validation of the world’s first space borne HSRL lidar, launched by China. Results show overall high consistency with ground based Raman lidar and CALIPSO satellite measurements, which proves the reliability of the HSRL lidar technique in retrieving aerosol profiles in space. The findings are valuable and the study is timely. However, I have a few concerns, mainly about data availability, and feel some improvements are needed.

Specific comments:

1. In the acknowledgement the authors indicated that the space HSRL data is not publicly available at the time of submission. I wonder if the data is available now? This is important since the results of the paper cannot be verified or repeated if the data cannot be accessed.
2. Although reasonable agreement is reached between HSRL and Raman lidar results, remarkable differences still show up in some cases and in the scatter plots such as Figure 13, especially for the depolarization ratio. It is therefore necessary to discuss the sources of uncertainties or causes of the differences. However, I did not seem to notice these discussions in the paper;
3. It is not clear how the space lidar and surface lidar are collocated? And how space HSRL and CALIPSO are collocated? Lidar orbit tracks are typically narrow and there may be certain distances between the lidar orbit and the surface lidar. Also, it is not clear how lidar signals are averaged spatially (vertical and horizontal) and temporally? The ground lidar data presented seem to have lower vertical resolution so it seems some averaging is performed.
4. The HSRL was launched more than 1.5 years ago, which should have obtained quite large amounts of data. So why only 6 cases are selected? How are they selected?
5. Why not also use EARLINET data? It is publicly available and may increase valid cases.
6. Some technical basics of the HSRL, such as signal to noise ratio, calibration method, data quality control, should be described.

The article introduces China's first successful launch of the world's first space hyperspectral resolution laser mine (ACDL), and analyzes the observation results of six cases including sunny, dust storm, and cloudy weather with ground-based LiDAR and CALIPSO, verifying that the radar can accurately detect the three-dimensional distribution of aerosols and clouds worldwide. However, the introduction and results analysis were not well described, resulting in redundant components and analysis deficiencies。

Specific comments:

1. In the second and third paragraphs of the introduction, the author provides a large number of examples to prove the argument that satellite based LiDAR data must be appropriately validated by ground-based LiDAR. In my opinion, this is too redundant. Two typical examples are sufficient.

1. In Figures 5 and 8, the TABC results of ACDL generally show a left shift phenomenon compared to the results of ground-based LiDAR, and the fluctuation of ACDL is significantly larger. Can the author explain this phenomenon?

1. What is the specific standard deviation represented by the shadow envelope in Figures 5,  8, and 12? If it is the standard deviation of the black solid line and the green solid line in the figure, then it should be a value. If not, please provide specific explanations.

1. In Figure 9, there is a significant difference in VDR values between ACDL and CALIPSO at several altitudes (such as below 2.5km). Why does the author still believe in the last paragraph of Section 3.2 that the observation results of ACDL and CALIPSO have good consistency?

1. The focus of the paper is to verify the consistency between ACDL and ground-based LiDAR observations, however, the presence of CALIPSO in the abstract and introduction is too strong, which is unnecessary. Although it would be more convincing to verify the consistency between ACDL and CALIPSO, as shown in Figure 9, their consistency is not very ideal.

1. Similar to the fourth opinion, the difference in observation results between ACDL and ground-based LiDAR in Figure 12 is so significant. Why does the author still believe in the third paragraph of Section 3.3 that both TABC and VDR values are numerically close?