Dear authors,

I would like to see a couple things improved in the paper prior publication to ACP:

1) In light of a comment made by both reviewers, I disagree with your resolution: "We, however, admit that a better concept would have been to organize this two papers in a companion paper (Part II) with this manuscript as Part I." In my opinion, the meteorological evaluation should had been the Part I, or the first (of two non-companion papers) submitted. However, you presented in your replies some minimal evaluation that hints that nothing disastrous has happened in the model, so I do not request to publish that other paper first, but put a couple of numbers in the manuscript that demonstrate that the climate state of the model is about right.

2) Your detailed reply and the changes in the manuscript are disconnected. Please try to have an 1-to-1 connection of each reply and its corresponding change in the manuscript, if one was required, and clearly state its location in the revised manuscript. As an example, and there are many more:

Reviewer: What will be the added value for having a computational expensive system to investigate emission/air quality issues? And more importantly: Is this model capable to reproduce accurately the state of the atmosphere?

Reply: The added value is the possibility to calculate radiative feedbacks and impacts on temperature (and climate in general). We also assume, based on previous validation studies involving RegCM and CAMx that the capability of these models reproducing the state of the atmosphere (both meteorology and climate) is will not change significantly if coupling them online w.r.t case when they are coupled offline.

I do not see where your reply to the comment made it into the manuscript. Even if I did find it, I would prefer not to have to search myself, but rather to be guided from your reply. This would facilitate the decision process, and also ensure that I did not miss anything in your reply.


If possible, please include in your track changes manuscript the changes from the original submission, not the revised one.

Thank you in advance