Dear Authors

Thank you for providing the revised manuscript “Value-added by high-resolution regional simulations of climate-relevant aerosol properties” as well as your responses to the issues raised during the reviews.

Based on the reviewer’s comments and my own assessment I have concluded to reconsider your manuscript for publication in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after major corrections, taking into account the review comments on your revised manuscript.

I concur with the reviewer’s assessment that the significant biases in the 60km resolution simulation appear to be the dominant driver of the difference to the 12km simulation and should be better understood. In the light of this, the value added by high resolution is difficult to assess or attribute – would high resolution add still value if the precipitation in the 60km simulation would not be as biased? Do other factors than precipitation contribute to the differences?

Kind regards,
Philip Stier

Co-Editor
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Dear Authors

Thank you for providing the revised manuscript “Value-added by high-resolution regional simulations of climate-relevant aerosol properties” in response to the request for major revisions.

Your revised manuscript has been reviewed again and the reviewer is not satisfied that all recommendations were addressed. I have also personally assessed this again and, as before, I concur with the reviewer’s assessment that the significant biases in the 60km resolution simulation appear to be the dominant driver of the difference to the 12km simulation. This raises the issue if this work can actually deliver an objective general assessment of the “Value-added by high-resolution regional simulations” as the title suggests. It essentially remains unclear what value would be added if the work did not start from a highly biased 60km resolution simulation that any simulation with a lower precipitation biases would improve on.

Based on the reviewer’s comments and my own assessment I have concluded to reconsider your manuscript for publication in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after major corrections. These revisions need to address the core issue raised during the re-review: to either start from a setup that allows the assessment of the value-added by high resolution or to focus the manuscript on an aspect that is less affected by the bias in the low-resolution simulation (which could require a resubmission if the focus is too different from the current work).

Kind regards,

Philip Stier
Co-Editor
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Dear Authors

Thank you for providing the revised manuscript “Value-added by high-resolution regional simulations of climate-relevant aerosol properties” in response to the request for major revisions and the subsequent re-review.

Based on the reviewer’s comments and my own assessment I have concluded to reconsider your manuscript for publication in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after minor corrections, taking into account the final remarks by the reviewer.

Kind regards,
Philip Stier

Co-Editor
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Dear Authors

Thank you for providing the revised manuscript “The impact of resolution on meteorological, chemical and aerosol properties in regional simulations with WRF-Chem” as well as your responses to the issues raised during the reviews.

I have assessed your revised manuscript and am pleased to inform you that the manuscript is now accepted for publication in ACP.

Thank you for choosing Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

Kind regards,

Philip Stier
Co-Editor
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics