Thank you for your improvements to the paper. I thought, however, that the response to reviewers was lacking, as in response to several comments, no changes were made to the paper. Of the five comments of Reviewer #1, only the fifth comment had appropriate changes made to the paper itself. For Reviewer #2, the response to the first comment mentions comparisons within the CA region that do not address the reviewer's concerns, and then references previous studies for comparisons outside of the CA region. But it is not clear whether these comparisons are appropriate to reference here, as the text does not clarify whether those studies used the same modeling case (emissions, meteorology, model version, etc.) as the current study. I think it is also unclear whether the conclusions ("capture ... the hemispheric flows" and "composition at the hemispheric scales is quite good") are justified by the comparisons shown.

Rather than sending the paper to the reviewers for a second review, I will ask that you look again at the reviewer comments and strengthen the response to those comments, ensuring that appropriate changes are made in the text of the manuscript.

The paper will be sent back to the reviewers to see if your responses satisfy them.

The two reviewers reviewed the paper again, and were not completely satisfied with your responses to earlier comments. Please revise to address their comments below.

In addition, I would like to follow up on one comment made earlier:

For the comparison with observations, you conclude "These studies indicate that the simulated transport patterns are able to capture the main important features of the hemispheric flows impacting Central Asia ...". It seems that there is reasonable agreement with the point observations available. But it is not clear to me that you can conclude on the basis of a few point measurements that the model simulates "transport patterns" or "hemispheric flows" correctly. Please comment and revise.