This is acceptable for publishing after confirming the following things with minor comments.

In Fig.5b of the first version, there was a heavy aerosol area around 40 deg. N. However, in the revised figure, it disappears. Even if you have re-simulated it with some tuned aerosol parameters, as described in your responses to the referees, this change looks so large. Other areas are not so changed even after your calculation.
In Figs.8a3 and 8b3, the similar phenomena are shown. Also in the revised figures, the color bar scale has been changed largely.
Are these rational and reasonable changes?

Minor comments:(Mainly technical)
L56: ‘and Tegen, 1998, 2003’ ⇒ ‘and Tegen, 1998; Tegen, 2003)’
L107: ‘monthly aerosol optical depth(AOD)’ ⇒ ‘monthly mean aerosol optical depth(AOD)’
L158: ‘Lamarque et al.(2011)’ ⇒ ‘Lamarque et al.(2010)’
L167: ‘particle sizes of dust, … is divided into’ ⇒ ‘particle sizes of dust, … are divided into’
L283: ‘ the column-integrated aerosol’ ⇒ ‘the column-mean aerosol’ ???
L284: ‘Angstrom exponent’ ⇒ ‘Ångstrom exponent’
Also L767 in Figure caption
L285: ‘The black rectangles’ ⇒ ‘The three black rectangles’
L288: ‘because of ‘ ⇒ ‘causing’ ???
L299: ‘Additionally, east of the TP, the sulfate aerosols’ ⇒ ‘Additionally, over the east of the TP, the sulfate aerosols’’
L319: ‘monthly aerosol optical’ ⇒ ‘monthly mean aerosol optical’
L321-322: ‘Figure 6a and b’ ⇒ ‘Figures 6a and 6b’
L325: ‘between Fig. 6c and d’ ⇒ ‘between Figs. 6c and 6d’
L372: ‘Additionally, Fig.7 shows’ ⇒ ‘Additionally, Figure 7 shows’
L387: ‘SSA in Fig. 4a2 and a3. As suggested in Fig. 8a1 and b1’ ⇒ ‘SSA in Figs. 4a2 and 4a3. As suggested in Figs. 8a1 and 8b1’
L396: ‘a large updraft existed’ ⇒ ‘both updrafts existed’
L397: ‘The aerosol mass concentration’ ⇒ ‘The dust mass concentration’
L425: ‘high values east of the TP’ ⇒ ‘high values over the east of the TP’