Dear authors

I appreciate your thorough replies to all reviewer comments and your changes to the text (even though you included only some of your proposed changes in the revised manuscript).
Before accepting the manuscript, several wording issues must be improved.
In particular the newly added text parts contain sloppy formulations.
In the following the pages and line numbers refer to the manuscript version with the highlighted changes.

p14,l24: "lower": do you mean the "near ground" atmospheric stability? Your formulation is confusing.
p15, l13: Better write "The total domain is located over water and we prescribe a constant ...". "in time" can be deleted.
p15, l20: to investigate THE
p16, l7: Is this what you wanted to say: We ended up with the desired magnitude of the geostrophic wind by conducting several experiments with different initialisation.
p16,l26: According to Fitch it should be V3.3. Generally my impression is, that in your replies you proposed text changes, which you have not yet included in the revised manuscript. And others which you have included.
This makes the evaluation harder. So for the next iteration please include all of your proposed corrections.
p19,l13: length scale of EWP -> length scale used in EWP?
p20,l7: whereas for the WRF-WF.... you may re-formulate this part of the sentence or split apart from the first part.
p25, l5: "wake PROPERTIES are" better?
p25, l7: "Its performance FOR (??) atmospheric stability, which requires information of the profiles, will be investigated in future. " Better describe what you mean.
p25,l13: Future implementations may account for ...
p25,l29: besides a ... analyses: delete "a" or write analyis.
p26,l3: with different vertical resolutions
p26,l11: why confirm? wouldn't be "determine" more appropriate?
p28,l6: agree


Further issues:

A.) I think it would be fair to mention in the abstract, that only a neutral profile was used in the simulations.

B.) It is not necessary to add the figure you attached to the response to reviewer #3.

C.) Rev #1, 9: Please add to the text the caveat that sigma depends on resolution.

D.) p28,l3: If I understood your work correctly, then i am not happy with the word "observational uncertainty". Does it refer to Fig. 5? This does show the observed variability (plus probably inlcuding obs. uncertainty).
The quite large spread may be reduced, if one could split the observations in several subsets that have distinctly different mean values. Would be atmospheric stability such a candidate?
The same thoughts apply to Fig. 4? Could you introduce a variable, which groups the observations in distinct subsets and then implies a sigma-definition that depends on this variable?

E.) Concerning your proposition to include Fig. 5 of Wu & Porte-Agel: The simpliest would be to ask the authors for a slightly modified version of the published figure. As far as I know this avoids copyright issues.
If you think including the figure makes the paper stronger, then go ahead. Still ask the editorial office for legal issues.

Regards,
Simon Unterstraßer

Dear authors

I regret that the decision takes so long. Basically, the manuscript is close to being accepted.
In fact, I am still waiting for a short comment of one of the reviewers who has a good reason for his/her delay. I will notify you as soon as the report is available.

Regards,
Simon

Dear authors

I am happy to accept your manuscript.
Your work fits perfectly to GMD.

Regards,
Simon