i thank the author for a thorough job in the revision. specifically i appreciate the effort that has gone into taking the comments of the referees, specifically Anton Beljaars, so seriously as to do additional experiments to provide the readers with more helpful results.

one of the referees was very happy with the manuscript and had few concerns. the other had larger concerns but rated the paper as "good" in all categories, and their major concerns led to a more comprehensive investigation. so i do not feel the need to send out to review again.

i have just a few minor comments about the additions.

1) several instances of "parallel" spelled incorrectly.

2) fig 6 is of lower quality than the rest, hopefully a better version will be included for production. but also, it is difficult to see some of the effects referenced e.g. effect of wind speed on accuracy of surface flux (and temperature?) in the JULES-type runs -- maybe choice of axes? A bit more effort should go into this figure.

Once that is done, I accept this manuscript.