General comments:

The manuscripts describes the results from WRF simulations over the Sichuan Basin, because the wind modelling is poor over this area. This is a interesting topic that warrants further investigations. My main concern with the paper is that the description of the measurements is missing. Effects of flow distortion on wind speed can be significant and should be described thoroughly. Technical specifications of the cup anemometer are not given. What is the observational uncertainty of the measurements? Are they regularly calibrated in a wind tunnel? Is a calm threshold applied for the wind vane? Furthermore, the local terrain effects will usually dominate wind speeds and direction measured at 10 m, which are not described at all in the manuscript (what is the local surface roughness etc?). In addition, there is unclear descriptions (see for example comment related to classification of "cold air" and "deep convection") and smaller technical issues. The authors have to convince the reader that the measurements are suitable for addressing a certain scientific question and relate the simulations to the specific research question. Finding the PBL scheme that can 'best' represent the wind distribution at one mast, is not so useful if a mast a kilometer away would lead to completely different results.

Specific issues:

l72-l88: For each case study one can find a PBL scheme that does better than the rest. This section should also describe the physical process that cause a certain PBL scheme to do better and should be related the research question in this study.

l102: So the aim of the study is diffusion in stable cases: that should be moved earlier in the introduction and the discussion about the different PBL schemes should be related to it.

l114: add reference for "grey zone", e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/61/14/1520-0469_2004_061_1816_tnmitt_2.0.co_2.xml

l218: I have never seen the formules before so at least a reference should be provided. In general, the Weibull A and k should be found by fitting the Weibull distributio to the observed frequency histogram of the wind speeds.

Section 3: I am  missing description of the measurements: what kind of cup anemometer was being used? What kind of wind vane? Was any quality assurance done to make sure the data were adequate for this study. If you are measuring at 10 m the wind speed is totally dominated by the roughness length at the site, so that should be thorougly described and assessed.

l239: A classification should classify a certain variable or process. But cold air is a property of the air, whereas deep convection is related to atmospheric stability. For example, you can have deep convection in very cold air. So this classification does not make sense.

Technical corrections

l9: remove unique or specify what you mean with unique and why it is unique.

l11: change to "In this study, the Weather Research ..."

l13: I would change to near-surface wind fields because at the surface there is by definition no wind.

l15: You mean multiple case studies? Not sure what a multi-case study is.

l19: You mean that the wind speed is sensitive to the choice of PBL scheme? In that case rewrite this sentence to make this more clear.

l26: tiny -> small

l26-29: "However, ... were opposite". This line is unclear, do you mean that the case studies where chosen to be mostly around the morning? If yes, why? What is a evening to evening process? The opposite of what?

l28: COR, if this is correlation coefficient just write it out. In general, abbrevations should be minimized in the abstract, because the reader does not know what they are at this point.

l35: "as the most" -> why is it the most fundamental? Temperature or humidity can also be fundamental, rewrite.

l49: I would say topographic and underlying surface are referring to the same concept. And thermal effects are also dynamic?

l116: vortices -> eddies

l132: resolution -> horizontal resolution.

l133: grids -> grid cells

l134: 45 what?

l138: upstream? The prevailing wind direction hasn't been introduced so the reader doesn't know what is upstream or downstream.

l152: reference missing for SRTM3

l160: high -> height

l198: surface -> near surface, see earlier comment

l206: I miss the definition of the overbar/overline.

Fig 2: seies -> series

l265: Using overestimate and underestimate in relation with wind direction is confusing. Rewrite to use a directional metric.

Publisher’s note: a supplement was added to this comment on 22 August 2024.

Please see the attachment.