Zhao et al. presented a detailed study on investigating the transport routes of Asian dust to the Arctic, the variation of aerosol properties during the long-range transport, and the impact of particle deposition on the surface albedo. Dust has been recognized as an important natural contributor to the global aerosol budget while its climate forcing is highly uncertain. Zhao et al. found that Asian dust has high probability reaching the Arctic and two typical transport events are well verified by various methods. The variations of the aerosol optical properties between the two events are compared, suggesting the importance of transport routes in modifying the aerosol properties. At last, the reduction of surface albedo due to the deposition of particles is demonstrated significant, which could be a crucial factor of the aerosol indirect climatic effect in the Arctic region.

Overall, this study is a nice work as it expands the current understanding of the Arctic haze. Hence, I recommend this manuscript for publication after the following comments have been addressed.

Major comments:

1. In the identification of dust particles by using the Lidar observation (e.g., Figure 6 and Figure 8), high extinctions aloft can be seen. How to differentiate the extinction between dust and clouds?
2. In Figure 10, the analyzed periods of AOD and AE are not consistent. Please state the reason. Also, in Figure 10c, why AOD in the source region is even lower than the downwind regions?
3. In Section 3.7.1, it is feasible to use the calculated ratio of the particulate matter in the snow versus that in the atmosphere. However, this ratio is derived based on the measurement of black carbon in snow and in the atmosphere. The authors should clarify how can be this ratio used for the estimation of dust in snow.

Other comments:

1. Line 36: “This study implied that the dust long transport from China to the Arctic was ubiquitous and may be a potential contributor to the Arctic regional climate and ecosystem.” The term “ecosystem” is suggested omitted.
2. Line 47 – 48: “origin of aerosol, transport, and deposition”. This expression is confusing and not clear.
3. Section2., how was the aerosol absorption measured?
4. Line 153: “height resolution” should be “vertical resolution”.
5. Line 154 – 165: relevant references about the satellite sensors should be cited.
6. Line 255-257: The writing “the presence of a low pressure system over northern Japan in spring” needs more evidence.
7. Line 279: the expression of time and date should be consistent throughout the paper.
8. As for the geopotential height fields that are used in Figure 4 and Figure 5, it is not clear which pressure level data is used.
9. Line 344: “particle spheric information” should be “particle morphology information”.
10. Line 358: When Angström exponent first appears here, its wavelength range should be provided.
11. As for the aerosol types observed by CALIPSO, the visualization is not clear enough to be determined in Figure 7 and 9.
12. Line 468 – 470: Please provide more supporting information on this statement.

This manuscript presents an interesting study to reveal the transport pathway of wind-blown dust from East Asia to the Arctic, and evaluate snow surface albedo change due dust and elemental carbon. The manuscript focused on an important topic as it’s necessary to understand how the rest of the world affect the Arctic due to its vulnerable environment and ecosystem. The authors applied multiple tools including the trajectory modeling, reanalysis data, and several observational database to investigated dust events during 2011-2015, with sufficient details demonstrated and in-depth discussions made. The manuscript presented a very interesting integrated data analysis with observations from different platforms but focused on one same event. In general the manuscript is well organized with solid method and clear description of the analysis and conclusions. Therefore I would recommend this manuscript to be accepted with a few minor revisions, if the following comments could be properly addressed.

Comment#1. Fresh dust particles will gradually go through aging process during the long-range transport, which may result in a different optical property of aged dust particles. Therefore I would recommend to include a brief discussion regarding how this may affect the conclusion about dust impact on snow albedo.

Comment#2. line98-102. These two sentences have the same meaning as aerosol loading is surely equivalent to the instantaneous forcing. Therefore I would recommend remove either one to be concise.

Comment#3. line102.”the deposition of dust … for almost all of the bottom of … forcing” unclear description, please consider rephrase it.

.

Comment#4. line108. “dust from China” Part of Gobi desert was outside China, I would recommend to mention dust from East Asia or dust from Taklamakan and Gobi deserts.

Comment#5. sec2.1. Is there any judgement why these two sites are selected but not other sites?

Comment#6. line197. “Cma” should be ”CMA”

Comment#7. sec3.1. Dust in East Asia has shown a significant decreasing trend during the past decade, so is this study period 2011-2015 representative for this study?

Comment#8. “Shaanxi” is this a typo?

Comment#9. line227. Please explain why the forward trajectory were computed at three specific height (500, 1000, 1500m)?

Comment#10. Sec3.2. It is necessary to briefly mention that the air mass traveling from desert carry along dust particles will be discussed later in sec3.5.

Comment#11. line301. The Barrow observation site is at ground surface, please explain why configure the backward trajectory at 6km?

Comment#12. lin468-470. Is it possible the AOD change was due to variations in an existing source (e.g., anthropogenic emission), rather than due to the mixing of dust and other particles?

Comment#13. 523-525. Particles in snow should be cumulative increasing through deposition even airborne concentration is decreasing, please briefly explain the judgement for the ratio used in this section.