Dear authors,

I have reviewed your response to the reviewer comments, and i have also read the whole paper myself, and carried out my own review, especially given the nature of the comments made by the second reviewer.

I agree that the paper makes a useful contribution towards improving our understanding on the usefulness of models such as UrbClim, which is much more computationally efficient and fully coupled RCMs such as WRF.

However, the paper in it's current form is not yet suitable for GMD. Please address my comments attached, and submit a revised manuscript.

Regards,
Jatin

Dear Markel et al,

Thanks for considering my comments. I am happy to "agree to disagree" on certain points. The paper makes a valuable contribution in helping scientists in choosing which tool to use when focusing on the UHI. However, the last sentence in your abstract still reads a bit odd to me:

"UrbClim is well suited to develop impact and adaptation studies at a city scale without high computing requirements, and mesoscale models are yet required to study the two-way interaction between the city and the atmosphere."

I suggest rewording to:
"UrbClim is well a suited model for impact and adaptation studies at a city scale without high computing requirements."

The last part of the sentense is ambiguous to me:
"and mesoscale models are yet required to study the two-way interaction between the city and the atmosphere"

What do you mean? by "yet required", do you mean "still required"? I'd suggest to get rid of the last part of the sentence or make the meaning more clear, for example:

"UrbClim is well a suited model for impact and adaptation studies at a city scale without high computing requirements, but does not replace the need for mesoscale atmospheric models when the focus is on the two-way interactions between the city and the atmosphere".

Regards,
Jatin