Response to Reviewer A
November 4, 2000
We appreciate Reviewer A’s acceptance of the paper. Our responses to the specific comments are listed below.
1. Some of the acronyms or unfamiliar terms are not defined at their first use. For example Kosa and CAPITA on page 3.
2. It would be interesting to mention briefly what are the main parameters driving the model (page8) and how those are obtained (which meteorological fields for example)
A sentence with additional references was added: “The NRL model is based on the Christensen  hemispheric eulerian model. It uses the NRL forecast meteorological fields [Hogan and Rosmond, 1991] and customized emissions for sulfur, windblown dust and biomass smoke.”
3. On page 11, could mixing effect the dissipation
Sentence added: “Dispersion by vertical, axial and lateral mixing of air masses is responsible for the dilution of dust mass concnetration”.
4. On page 22, I wouldn't call 5 cm/s a strong subsidence
5. The last paragraph of section 5.2 contains findings that I think should be more emphasized, both in the abstract and conclusions.
Emphasis has been added to the Abstract (“The yellow colored backscattering by the dust eludes plausible explanation using simple Mie theory with constant refractive index”) and Discussion (“find an explanation of the yellow dust color”)
6. On page 2, line 3., change is to are