See report!

The topic of this manuscript is both necessary and scientifically meaningful for research on stratosphere-troposphere exchange over the Tibetan Plateau. The observational dataset used in this study is relatively rare. In particular, the lidar system employs four differential absorption wavelengths together with two nitrogen Raman channels, allowing simultaneous measurements of tropospheric and stratospheric ozone profiles as well as temperature profiles over the Tibetan Plateau. This dataset therefore has considerable scientific value. The short-duration and rapid ozone downward-transport event presented in the manuscript is also worthy of attention.

The overall research framework is reasonably complete. I am particularly interested in the relationship established in this study between lidar-observed ozone downward transport and variations in the temperature profile. The main conclusions of the current manuscript are generally reasonable. Nevertheless, the descriptions of several methods and the associated uncertainty analysis require further improvement. I recommend that the authors address the following comments in the revised manuscript.

P4, Lines 95-99

The manuscript states that the raw backscatter signals were stored at 1 min intervals, while the stratospheric signals were accumulated over 30 min and processed using a moving window to obtain continuous profiles. Under this processing scheme, retrievals at adjacent output times may share a large proportion of the same raw signals. The authors should therefore distinguish between the effective integration time and the independent temporal resolution.

For example, the expression “1 min temporal resolution” could be revised to “a 1 min output interval with a 30 min effective integration time.” These two concepts should not be treated as equivalent.

P6, Lines 111-116

This section presents the merged ozone number-density profiles obtained from the lidar measurements, but no uncertainty range is provided. Considering that the ozone flux calculated later in the manuscript depends simultaneously on ozone concentration, mass flux, and the diagnosed tropopause position, the authors should provide a reasonable estimate of the uncertainty in the retrieved ozone profiles.

P10, Lines 219-229

The authors select 3 PVU as the dynamical tropopause for this event based on changes in the calculated mass flux under different potential-vorticity thresholds and on the spatial continuity of the corresponding PV surfaces. This choice is generally understandable, but the current selection criteria remain somewhat qualitative.

I suggest that the authors provide a comparison of the main results obtained using, for example, the 2, 3, and 4 PVU surfaces. If the principal conclusions remain consistent under these different thresholds, such a comparison would provide stronger evidence for the robustness of the results. Alternatively, the statement that “3 PVU is the most appropriate threshold” could be moderated. A more precise formulation would be that “3 PVU is adopted in this study as a representative threshold for this event.”

P8-13, Figs. 4 and 8 and the related discussion

The most distinctive aspect of this study is the simultaneous observation of high-resolution ozone and temperature profiles by the lidar system. I recommend that the authors further strengthen this part of the manuscript.

In particular, the identification criteria for the T0-T6 stages should be described more clearly. The manuscript should also explain more explicitly how the observed temperature gradients correspond to the ozone anomalies. A quantitative or event-by-event comparison would be especially useful. Further development of this analysis would make the observational contribution of the study more prominent. It would also reduce the extent to which the main conclusions depend on a single flux-diagnostic method.

P17, Lines 280-285

The description in this section is somewhat confusing. The authors are advised to carefully check the relevant text and clarify the intended meaning.

P17, around Line 343

The reference “shown in Fig. 10” appears to refer to Fig. 11. Please check and correct the figure citation.

Overall, the observational dataset has substantial scientific value, and the event investigated in this study is reasonably representative. The main results are generally credible. After the issues listed above have been adequately addressed, the manuscript could become a useful case study of Stratosphere-Troposphere Exchange over the Tibetan Plateau.

Because of unique terrain and atmospheric circulation, the Tibetan Plateau is a hotspot for studying troposphere-stratosphere exchange. Observation data from spaceborne sensors and reanalysis data were employed in the studying of troposphere-stratosphere exchange over the Tibetan Plateau, however, observation data with high spatial and temporal resolutions are still very lack, which are essential for studying troposphere-stratosphere exchange.

This article presents ozone measurements from a mobile ozone lidar located in the Tibetan Plateau, and study the troposphere-stratosphere exchange by using ozone as a tracer. Due to the high altitude, there are few lidar operated in the Tibetan Plateau. The lidar employed in the article has a capability of profiling ozone and temperature in the troposphere and stratosphere synchronously with high spatial and temporal resolutions, and the lidar data are very valuable for the atmospheric studying over the Tibetan Plateau. The job in the article is a good attempt to study the troposphere-stratosphere exchange by using ozone lidar data in the Tibetan Plateau. The consistency of the lidar measurements and ERA5 data indicated the reasonable of the EAR5 data over the Tibetan Plateau, and more details could be found in the lidar data, and these details could provide more information of the troposphere-stratosphere exchange.

The article could be accepted and published.

There are some comments as following,

1. Line 126, “USTC Ozone lidar shows good consistency the ERA5”, however, in the figure 3(b), the peak value of the ozone concentration profile from ERA5 is obviously lager than the peak value from lidar.
2. Line 171, the vertical resolution of the temperature profile from ERA5 for tropopause determination should be given.
3. The time in the article is the local time or UTC?