Dear Dr. Rodrigo,
As you can see from the review reports, two reviewers (2&3) are positive on your work, but include a list of minor comments and concerns. One reviewer has mixed feelings – he/she finds the work interesting, but would like to see a better explanation of the relevance of the work for wind energy; next to that, also a list of minor comments is added.

Please incorporate the reviewers comments in detail in a revision of your manuscript, and prepare per reviewer a detailed response letter, in which you include the reviewer’s comment, your answer, and a detailed description (possibly using literal quotations) of what (and where) you changed things in the manuscript to accommodate the reviewer’s comment (or better avoid possible misunderstandings). Please avoid only answering the reviewer without changes to the manuscript (unless for some reason you fully disagree with the comment – in that case, provide clear arguments). Please make your response letters self-contained, so that I have the possibility to make a decision on the revision without sending your work back to the reviewers.

Regarding the ‘larger’ concern of reviewer 1, please also take that into account in the intro/conclusion of your manuscript. In fact, I agree with the reviewer, that a slightly better explanation of how this works fits into a set-up of a future improved ‘wind-energy’ model chain is of relevance (e.g., including how such a model chain would look like – it will presumably not consist of column models as you used here; so what aspect of the full model chain is verified here, what aspects are possibly not verified, etc). I believe you should be able to keep this short, i.e. either adapting the paragraphs you already have, or slightly extending with max. 1 to 2 additional paragraphs…

Sincerely,
Johan Meyers

Thanks for the careful revision.