Please see attached

The paper presents an interesting modification to the DWM model, that moves away from the assumption that the wake is transported as passive scalar and instead is akin to momentum transport, which is less efficient. The authors are using lidar wake measurements to motivate their modification. Overall the paper is clear, well structured and written, but fails to make full use of the measurements available.   

Whilst the paper is sufficiently detailed with respect to the modelling choices and underlying procedures the validation approach remains somewhat unclear and is completely lacking any uncertainty quantification (measuring the lateral component with a lidar for instance should have large uncertainty). Spatially and temporal varying measurements of the wake need more rigorous treatment than stationary data if they are meant to be useful in the context of validating a dynamic wake model. There is temporal and spatial variation in the reference data and the measurement uncertainties need to be propagated to the derived quantities like the wake centre location. They should also propagate the input uncertainties through the DWM model and then compare with the observations. The authors need to perform validation under uncertainty to clearly demonstrate that their is statistically significant improvement from their modification of the DWM model. The linear regression lines shown throughout the submission are not sufficient. There are plenty of previously published studies using complex lidar measurements for model validation the authors could refer to for inspiration. The scientific impact of the submission will be much greater once all uncertainties are accounted for.