GENERAL COMMENTS

The study by Barreto et al. focuses on the vertical profiles of aerosol extinction and meteorological variables over Tenerife during Saharan dust outbreaks, compared to clean scenarios. The analysis is based on 12 years of data and is differentiated between winter and summer. The dust layer and the marine boundary layer characteristics are studied separately. The direct radiative effects of both aerosol and water vapour advected during the outbreaks is assessed in both the short- and long-wave ranges based on average profiles. Finally, some considerations about ice nucleation processes are given based on cloud statistics and model results.

Although the paper is quite long and not always a compelling read, it condenses a great amount of information that the interested reader can have all in one place. Hence, the paper deserves publication on ACP. Some marginal comments follow, mainly based on the reviewer's expertise.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1. Is the asymmetry factor the best way of representing highly forward-scattering particles? Have the authors checked whether there is any difference if the full phase function is used?

2. Have the authors compared the MOPSMAP output to the AERONET-derived aerosol properties within the common wavelength range?

3. As mentioned at line 579, low cumulus clouds prevent observation of higher clouds using the lidar. Could the anticorrelation seen in Fig. 6 between low and high clouds be partly due to this limitation? In the specific case study, an all-sky camera was used to prove the presence of cirrus (not seen by the MPL-3). However, the cloud statistics in Fig. 6 only rely on the lidar profiles.

TECHNICAL REMARKS

- abstract: acronyms should be avoided in an abstract unless a term is used multiple times (e.g., MPL-3 is only used one and other abbreviations only twice);

- l. 54: "studies... study" ("investigation" or "research" can be used instead?);

- l. 61-69: the Introduction is very long. Maybe these lines with detailed considerations might be dropped?

- l. 78: "Therefore" is used as a consequence of what? It is not obvious that biomass-burning aerosol has specific geographical provenance;

- l. 98: "from Tenerife" (Tenerife was already mentioned one line above) could maybe replaced by "in the same area"?

- l. 161-163: information on how aerosol properties at slightly different wavelengths are compared (mentioned at lines 441-443) could be anticipated here;

- l. 183: only arrival altitudes are mentioned. Does ARTI also accounts for the trajectory altitude above the Saharan-Sahel surface?

- l. 189: it could be anticipated that an additional criterion based on aerosol quantities derived by AERONET (l. 247-250) is also used to identify the dust air masses;

- l. 228: this sentence is too general and unclear. Please, rephrase;

- l. 267: is the presence of residual dust a sign that 120h is a too short period for the back-trajectory calculations?

- l. 267-268: the two sentences are maybe a bit confusing? It sound like both the second extinction maximum and the minimum are located at the same place, i.e. near the MBL top;

- l. 297: what does "500 km above Western Sahara" mean here? Is it "north of"? Same at line 358;

- l. 374: please, state the altitude levels used to estimate the temperature inversion;

- l. 399-400: "As a consequence" does not refer to the previous sentence, but to the one before. Please, reorder or rephrase;

- l. 427: acts "in" modifying?

- l. 514-519: have the authors validated the cloudscreening procedure described, and how? How different are thick Saharan dust layers from clouds, as seen by the MPL?

- Fig. 10: "ln10" --> "log10".

The manuscript presents the seasonal evolution of meteorological vertical profiles and lidar-derived extinction coefficients using long-term observations in Tenerife. Data were analysed under the clean scenario, the summer-Saharan scenario, and the winter-Saharan scenario. Both dust and water vapour impacts in the radiative balance were investigated. The ice nucleation processes were also discussed. The dataset is interesting, and the manuscript is well written. The manuscript is worthwhile to be published, after addressing all the points raised by reviewers.

Please see below some suggestions and comments:

The manuscript is long, and with too many acronyms. The Appendix A helps a bit, but I had to continuously go back and forth to remind myself what all those acronyms represent. Maybe reduce some used of abbreviations, e.g. clean FT (CFT). Besides, it would help if some important abbreviation definitions were added in the figure captions.

I agree with the first reviewer, that acronyms should be reduced in the abstract.

In the abstract (l 8) and conclusion (l 600), “it was associated with lidar extinction coefficients ~ 0.030 km^-1”. Please clarify this “extinction coefficients” (max at which height? mean with standard deviation?). In line 265, you mentioned the maximum in the median extinction profile is ~0.033 km-1.

l 9 add “+” for 48%

l 10-11 clarify “lower levels” and “higher levels”

l 128-131 this paragraph is more related to the section 2 “site”

l 154-158 The full overlap of MPL-3 is at ~ 5km agl. I assume you have applied overlap corrections in this study, was the same overlap correction applied to all profiles?

The lower limit of the reliable backscatter / extinction profiles after the overlap correction is 300 m? With the uncertainty of only 10 % near ground?

“a relative uncertainty in the overlap correction between 5 % and 10 %”, do you mean uncertainty on the NRB or derived optical profiles?

Any vertical smoothing was applied in the profiles?

l 159-167 LR were estimated using two-layer approach, and then applies to derive extinction coef. What were the LR values? These are interesting information to present.

What is the error/uncertainty on the derived extinction coefficients? Can it be added in the median extinction profile (e.g. by error bar)? I assume in the overlap region (below 5km), this uncertainty has higher value.

Fig.1 Mean extinction profile is not in the grey shaded area, especially in fig.1b. do you have an explanation?

Please specify “lidar total extinction at each level”.

Is the height asl in all figures?

Table2, for winter “and summer” seasons.

Fig.4,5 add “523nm” in the caption for extinction.

l 547 fig.6b not a

l 563-564, information was not shown in fig.7b, add the reference of Fig S8 here.

 “-“ are not visible in fig.7b, change the figure as in Fig S8.

Fig.7 change “nINP”

l567 m³

fig S7, 1h time averaged MPL-3 profile centred on 10:54? please clarify.

add the time for the DREAM extinction profile. what’s the shaded area for DREAM profiles?