In " Contrasting Impacts of Asian Sulfate Aerosols on Regional Summer Extreme Precipitation under Different Climate Backgrounds ", Feifei Luo et al. use the coupled climate model FORTE2 to investigate the effects of Asian sulfate aerosols on regional summer extreme precipitation under two climate backgrounds: a pre-industrial climate state and a climate state 1 K warmer than pre-industrial conditions. The authors also compare FORTE2 results with simulations from the more comprehensive PDRMIP simulations. Overall, this is a valuable study that addresses an important and timely topic and has the potential to be of broad interest. However, the manuscript requires revisions before it can be considered for publication. In particular, it would benefit from substantial improvements in clarity, structure, and presentation. Many sentences are overly long and difficult to follow, which at times obscures the main message. 

In addition, the model evaluation lacks a direct and consistent comparison framework, as the simulations being compared are conducted under different forcing and background climate conditions. This makes it difficult to assess the robustness of the FORTE2 results and weakens confidence in the conclusions. The authors should better justify the comparability of the evaluated simulations and provide a clearer assessment of model performance and result robustness. 

Although a Results section and a separate Discussion section is provided later, several subsections move prematurely into interpretation and discussion without adequately presenting the underlying results. I recommend first describing the key findings shown in the figures and then reserving interpretation and broader implications for the Discussion section. This would improve the logical flow and make it easier for readers to distinguish between the reported results and their interpretation. 

The manuscript structure would also benefit from placing the Discussion before the Conclusion. Furthermore, the current Discussion section reads more like a recommendation than a discussion of the study’s findings. Consider expanding the discussion of the key results, their implications, limitations, and relation to previous studies, while reserving recommendations and future work for the concluding remarks. 

Line 42: The statement is somewhat ambiguous. Please clarify that the aerosol-induced reduction in precipitation is enhanced under a warmer climate background, rather than implying that global warming itself strengthens the aerosol effect. 

 Line 110: Could the authors provide more details on how the vertical layer thickness varies with depth? Additionally, please clarify the rationale and advantages of using progressively thicker layers at greater depths. 

 Lines 138–139: Could the authors explain the rationale for imposing the constraints σmin < 0.75 and pmin > 300 hPa over complex terrain? In particular, it would be helpful to describe their impact on the model performance and to provide references supporting the choice of these threshold values. 

Lines 149–155: are somewhat lengthy and difficult to follow. Please consider rephrasing this section to improve clarity and readability.  

 Line 155 – 156: The wording is unclear. Do the authors mean that the first 50 years were treated as a spin-up period and excluded from the analysis? If so, please state this explicitly. 

 Fig. 1: The two panels are presented using different scales, which makes a direct comparison difficult. The authors state that the figure is intended to highlight differences in spatial patterns and signs; however, most regions appear positive in both panels. Would the authors consider including a direct comparison, such as a normalized difference or relative change, to better illustrate the differences?

 Lines 193–197: The interpretation is largely left to the reader. Rather than only stating that the sign and spatial pattern can be compared, the authors should provide their own assessment of the model performance and discuss what the comparison with PDRMIP implies about the robustness and limitations of the FORTE2 results. 

 Section 2.1: SyRAP-FORTE2 is discussed as a version of the FORTE2 model; however, the term SyRAP-FORTE2  rarely appears beyond the model description and is not used consistently in the Results, Discussion, or Conclusion sections. It is therefore unclear whether the reported results are produced by SyRAP-FORTE2, FORTE2, or whether the two names are being used interchangeably. The authors should clarify the relationship between these model versions and consistently indicate which model is used throughout the manuscript to avoid confusion.  

 Lines 160–167: The large number of correlation coefficients is difficult to follow. Could the authors provide a brief summary of the key results, as a table? 

 Lines 260–262: Could the authors provide the corresponding figure or table of reference for these values to help readers locate the supporting results? 

 Line 258 and 263: "PDRMIP" and "MMM"  appear to be used interchangeably. Please use consistent terminology to avoid confusion.  

 Lines 272 – 274: The model evaluation appears to compare simulations conducted under substantially different forcing setups and background climate states. For example, FORTE2 includes aerosol-free and P1k experiments, whereas the PDRMIP baseline is configured with present-day aerosol and greenhouse gas forcing. Could the authors justify why these simulations are considered sufficiently comparable for model evaluation?  

 Line 297: Please clarify what is meant by "shown here".  Consider providing an explicit cross-reference to the relevant figure, table, or section. 

 Line 316: "East Asia and South Asia"  A cross-reference to  "Fig. 4a" would be helpful here, allowing readers to easily identify the regions discussed and relate the text to the spatial patterns shown in the figure. 

 Section 3.3: This section appears to move directly into interpretation and discussion without first presenting the results shown in the individual figures. I suggest first describing the main findings from Figs. 7 - 10 separately and then discussing their implications. As currently written, readers are expected to infer the results. 

 Section 3.4: Similar to Section 3.3, this section moves rapidly into interpretation without adequately presenting the results shown in Figs. 11–13. Please consider first summarizing the main findings from each figure before discussing their implications.  

 Lines 360–361: Since this is already the Conclusion section, the phrase "Our main findings are summarized as follows"   is unnecessary and could be omitted for conciseness.  

 Lines 503–504: The statement " This study underscores the strong dependence of aerosol-precipitation relationships on the background climate"  appears somewhat broader than what is directly demonstrated in the manuscript. Consider limiting this conclusion to the specific regions and climate scenarios examined in this study, rather than implying a more general relationship. 

 Line 503 – 508:  While it is important to acknowledge model limitations. The wording in this paragraph sounds significantly to undermine confidence in the model and the study's conclusions.  

Line 113:  "adjustments"   to adjustment

 Line 153: “Fig. 1a” Is it the correct reference? Please verify the cross-reference. 

 Line 283: Please define the acronym "SST"   at first use (i.e., "Sea Surface Temperature").