Thank you for the detailed responses to most of the reviewers' suggestions. The responses indicate that the manuscript has been revised to provide a more detailed motivation for the work, clearer presentation of the simulation models and their results, and a more frank assessment of how atmospheric stability might/not impact the results. The revised manuscript should carefully consider especially the detailed comments from reviewer 3. I will review the revised manuscript and then determine if the manuscript should be sent back to the reviewers.

This revision of the manuscript was commended by both reviewers as being much clearer than the previous iteration. The reviewers did note two more references that should be included (reviewer 2), and reviewer 1 caught several minor errors in wording, figure legends, tables, in the appended pdf that should be incorporated into a minor revision which should be straightforward to implement. Reviewer 2's advice to expand the conclusions should also be heeded for a stronger final manuscript.

Thank you for your contribution to Wind Energy Science.

Thank you for considering WES at the publication vehicle for this interesting contribution.
The review process took some time, but it has been improved considerably, as you have also stated.
Next the manuscript will be typeset and proof read by the Copernicus staff.