Please find the comment in the supplement.

Dust aerosols significantly influence cloud evolution and subsequent precipitation processes, primarily through their modulation of cloud microphysical properties via aerosol-radiation and aerosol-cloud interactions. Based on multi-source observational data, this study aims to analyze the impact of dust aerosols on cloud microphysical characteristics over long timescales and quantitatively assess their contribution to extreme precipitation events. The research topic holds considerable scientific value, and the analysis is relatively systematic and comprehensive. Therefore, I recommend acceptance of this manuscript after the authors address the following points.

General comments:

1.The impact of dust aerosols on extreme precipitation is modeled under various emission scenarios, adding completeness to the paper. Nevertheless, the interpretation of the results is too succinct to convey the significance of these findings. The analysis and discussion of this part (Figures 9b and 9c) should be expanded.

2.To ensure the robustness of the conclusions regarding threshold selection, it is recommended that the authors include an additional analysis in the main text or supplementary materials. For instance, a brief demonstration of whether key statistical characteristics of D_EP events, such as trends and contribution rates, remain consistent when using the 80th or 85th percentile thresholds compared to the current 75th percentile would be valuable.

Specific comments:

1.Line 33: "This findings" contains a grammatical error and should be corrected to "These findings".

2.Line 36: "Dust–cloud-precipitation interactions" should be revised to "Dust-cloud-precipitation interactions".

3.It is recommended to replace "spring and summer" in Line 39 with "March–August" and maintain this terminology consistently throughout the manuscript.

4.Lines 117-118 state that 'It is noteworthy that only five to six models satisfy the aforementioned daily scale output specification'. Please specify which output variables (e.g., daily precipitation, dust concentration) were used to screen the models, leading to the exclusion of others.

5.In Section 2.5, "Definition of EP events", the D_EP event appears to be defined based on station observation data. How is the D_EP event defined when investigating the future projections of extreme precipitation influenced by dust aerosols?

6.Lines 153-156 mention "removing the associated systematic errors from the reanalysis". What specific method was employed to achieve this?

7.The sentence in Line 164, "We analyze the background environmental conditions...", should be revised to "This step involves analyzing the background environmental conditions...".

8.In Lines 176-178, the phrasing "frequency (81%) and amount (74%)" is ambiguous. Do these percentages refer to the proportion of stations showing a significant increasing trend, or do they indicate the magnitude of the trend itself? The authors are advised to clarify this to ensure precise interpretation.

9.It is recommended to delete the word "respectively" in line 194 of the figure caption.

10.Lines 226-229 describe the study area as "reconstructed using a moving coordinate system centered on the stations experiencing D_EP events". Could you please specify whether this coordinate system moves dynamically with each individual D_EP event, or is it aggregated based on specific time windows?

11.Line 259: "undersores" is a spelling error and should be corrected to "underscores".

12.Lines 258-259: The clause "However, observations show an increasing trend in EP events within the Tarim Basin" can be replaced with the more concise and impactful phrase "However, the observed increase in EP events within the Tarim Basin".

13.Line 279: Please delete the redundant "nuclei".

14.Lines 294-296: The text states "significantly increasing the particle size of hydrometeors such as liquid water radius (LWR) and ice water radius (IWR; Figs. 7d, 7e)". According to classical cloud microphysics, the ice nucleation process inherently consumes supercooled liquid water, converting it to ice phase particles, which should theoretically reduce liquid water content and decrease the liquid water radius. Please clarify the physical mechanism behind the observed increase in LWR.

15.Line 304: Please change "g m⁻²" to "g·m⁻²".

16.It is recommended to replace "Therefore" in line 331 with "Consistently".

17.Lines 360-364: It is recommended to replace the conjunction pair "On one hand... On the other hand..." with "Under certain conditions... Under other conditions..." to more accurately reflect that these are potential outcomes under different scenarios, rather than two coexisting aspects of a single process.

18.It is recommended to correct "persists" to "persist" in line 383.