This paper documents the validation of a relatively new 3D PBL scheme in an offshore application

coupled to a wave model making it a state-of-the-science study well worth publishing. All my

comments on this are relatively minor and I will list them below.

1. The main thing I would like to have seen is how the coupling is done to the wave model. This

is something still not seen very often and it would be helpful to spell it out. I am aware that

directional drags could also be implemented in such coupling and whether or not this is done

should be mentioned. I assume the wave height and period come into the roughness length somehow.

I believe this would add to the completeness of the paper.

2. Figure 6. Caption does not mention that potential temperature is also shown.

3. Line 209 and Figure 10. "1800 UTC Nov 6". The observed winds don't show a maximum at that

time (or any observations).

4. Line 229 and Figure 12. "0600 UTC Nov 6". This is not a time shown in Figure 12.

5. Line 261. "full 3D PBL". May be helpful to add a "wherein..." here as I had to search back

through the paper to find what the full option was.

6. Overall while the differences were marginal, it was good to see the surface and lidar data

validating the coupled model. If any simulations were carried out without coupling the wave

model, it would have been interesting to see a note on whether that helped or why a wave

model was coupled.

This study is valuable in that it applies and evaluates the performance of a 3D PBL scheme with high potential at a time when high-resolution simulations are predominant. I provide several minor comments below.

Specific comments:

Fig. 1a: It would be beneficial to replace this with a higher-resolution figure. Improving the overall visual quality would help (e.g., adding latitude/longitude labels and making key information readily visible before reading the caption).



Fig. 2: Axis titles and units for the color bar should be clearly indicated. The presence of an outer map may lead to a misunderstanding that domains 1 and 2 are configured in a particular way. It might be clearer to present the full domains (d01 and d02) alongside a zoomed-in view of domain 2 in parallel.



L121: Please clarify under what assumptions the approximated 3D PBL parameterization can be applied.



L137: The phrase “region of interest near the WRF model d02” is somewhat ambiguous. Is domain 2 not the primary region of interest? A more explicit description or a corresponding map would improve clarity.

L149: Please revise to explicitly state “less westerly and stronger over the ocean *than the 3D PBL.*”

L149: The hub height of 206.5 m—what is the basis for this value, and how is it derived within the model?

Fig. 6: The repeated references to time in the caption could be streamlined. Additionally, please clarify the meaning of each line shown in the figure.

Figs. 7, 8, 9: It would be preferable to place labels on the first panel rather than the middle. Also, repeating the terms “Bias/MAE” on every panel seems unnecessary.

Fig. 7: Is it appropriate to directly compare 10-m wind with wind at buoy measurement height?

L209–210: Is this analysis valid without observational data? It is unclear whether winds in domain 1 are consistently underestimated beyond the MRY site.

L210, Fig. 10: The SPB site was previously abbreviated as SBP; please ensure consistency.

Sections 3.4–3.5: The comparison with buoy and Doppler lidar observations lacks a clear emphasis or key takeaway, and currently reads as largely descriptive.

L271: Please clearly denote this as the “approximated 3D PBL.”

L301: It appears that the 3D PBL code is not included in commit #843f8be. Please update this to reflect the most recent commit hash.