We are grateful to the reviewer for the positive appraisal of the paper, recommending publication with minor revisions and the useful comments. Regarding the associated jupyter notebook, we are sorry it did not work for the referee. We have not been able to replicate the problem on Sciserver, and know for a fact that many users are already using and downloading data successfully using getData (on Sciserver but also using the Local notebook version than allow users to run the notebook on their own computer without needing an account on Sciserver). We are confident the system is working and is allowing users access to the data.

 

In the revision, we will address the minor comments as follows:

* We agree with this comment and will add, in line 39-40, the clarifier "To date, the JHTDB fundamental turbulence datasets have ..." - this should clarify that we are not referring to the wind energy dataset. Also, we can see that the additional naming "JHTDB-DNS" on line 58 caused confusion since even the existing database (without wind) included 2 LES datasets. We believe changing this instance to simply JHTDB as intended will help clarify the distinction.

* Agreed. We will change the nomenclature and now call the boundary layer height z_i instead of h_ABL everywhere. The domain height is 2z_i and the sponge region is 0.5z_i deep. For the purposes of the present dataset, we have checked that the effects of further increases of domain and sponge-layer height are negligible. For studies of larger-scale effects near the top of the boundary layer, e.g. creation and propagation of gravity waves generated by wind farms, indeed recent work has shown that domain heights as high as 10z_i and higher would be required, while others have used domain heights 1.5z_i and lower, etc. Our choice is a practical compromise considering data storage needs and costs. 

* Indeed, we missed defining what is theta-prime in the text (it is the deviation from the reference temperature theta_0), and explaining that it is the variable stored in the database. This will be corrected in the revised version. 

We thank the referee #2 for the positive reception of the work and for the two useful questions.  They are addressed as follows:

(1) In the revised version, we will include a justification for the reference temperature and include something along the lines of:    ``We adopt 263.5 K as the reference potential temperature, consistent with the value chosen in studies by Gadde & Stevens (2021) and our prior simulations of SBL and CNBL flows reported in Narasimhan et al. (2024). This reference temperature was inspired by observations from the Beaufort Sea Arctic Stratus Experiment (BASE) and simulations by  Kosović & Curry (2000).  While the value of $\theta_0$ is relatively low, it serves primarily as a relative additive reference that does not significantly affect the simulated flow dynamics or the physical interpretation of the results. For example, if we used 273K, it would change the implied thermal expansion coefficient in our Boussinesq approximation only by about  3\%.''''

(2) We have corrected the typos.