Dear authors, please find my comments in the attached file. 

I start stating that I agree with all comments made by Reviewer #1 (one of the benefits of open review), so I tried to avoid to raise the same issues he/she raised.

The main objectives of the paper could be made more clear in the introduction. The authors state: Our approach distinguishes itself from the existing literature in its breadth, by the dynamic coupling of turbine/atmosphere and turbines, consideration of different atmospheric turbulent

conditions, and consideration of single turbines as well as simple cluster arrangements of multiple turbines.", but what are the expected impacts and new insights from these simulations? What are the questions the authors are trying to answer? FOWTs have been studied for a few years, using numerical simulations with low, medium and high fidelity, and experiments. To the best of my knowledge, most of these studies indicate that the power production of FOWTs does not significantly change with the motion of the platform. So the analysis of the response of a single turbine does not contribute much in my point of view. I believe there are more potential contributions in the analysis of the wakes, which is very superficial in the current version of the paper, and in the analysis of the wind farm. So I suggest further analysis of the results a major re-writing of the corresponding section in order to highlight the novelties that this work might show.

Minor revisions are listed below:

1. Line 32: remove "wave" after "specific"
2. Line 59: citation format (use \citep)
3. Line 60: change "often are" to "are often";citation format (use \citep)
4. Line 62: citation format (use \citep)
5. Line 78: citation format (use \citep)
6. Line 86: delete "and their waks"
7. Line 96: "dynamic coupling of turbine/atmosphere and turbines" - this is confusing, please rephrase
8. Line 102: change "This" to "That"
9. Line 123: change "sway suge and yaw" to "sway, surge and yaw" or "sway, roll and yaw", depending on what the authors want to say
10. Line 172: I believe equation (14) is missing the area of the rotor on the right hand side
11. Line 211: remove "as well"
12. Caption of Figure 3: remove "in" (which is already struck through)
13. Line 333: "eq:uplatform"
14. Line 581: remove the degree symbol from the values of the temperature, i.e., change to 300 K, 308 K etc. This mistake is repeated in many other places in the paper, please perform a thorough check. 
15. Line 584: portUrb is first mentioned here, but this is a key information of the study. Please introduce the software earlier in the paper.
16. Employ the simple past or present perfect verb tenses to describe what you did. For example, in line 293: In all simulations in this section, a CFL stability value of CFL = 0.6 was used, and a grid spacing of 10m in each direction was used. Identical turbulent precursor inflow conditions were used for all simulations of a given hub height mean wind speed to ensure the only wake and power differences between simulations with and without floating platform motions are due solely to floating platform motions.