These comments are not technical but minor and are mainly concerned with clarification of figures etc.

1)Appendix A

Which of these stations are considered coastal and which are inland?
This attribution should also be clarified in Figure 3 a and b as well as Figure 1 b
as well as section 2.4
Referring to colors alone might be sufficient but could again be spelled out.

Figure 2 a and b, Are these annual averages without any diurnal bias?
It might be useful to learn more about how this previous work, as cited, relates to this study.
2 c is an excellent figure.

Figure 4)
Upper and Lower Limit of Northern and Southern Boundary are still not clear.
Does the dashed line represent the 22.5 degrees? If so please label it.
Having 2 circle symbols there is confusing.
Please clearly indicate the latitude from which each of the 3 lines was obtained.

The interpretation in Section 4 does at no point take into account topography in relation to
1) River valleys
2) Escarpment v Coastal Plains
3) The surface roughness (i.e. dune fields)

The data here seems to suggest that these play a role in the fog distribution patterns as observed in Figure 4 and 5.
A paragraph to that effect might be useful.

Figure 1 could be improved in this regard too. The topography of the coastal plain plays an important role and the lack of integration and illustration via a DEM as in the Andersen and Cermak paper is an omission here. Places are mentioned without being depicted in the map. Where is Alexander Bay ?

Minor points

Page 2 line 5 – formation/type is ambiguous
Page 2 line 9 Uncertainties also exist related to the … is clumsy phrasing and wording
Page 3 line 7 it has shown good skill… is clumsy phrasing and wording
Page 6 line 6 However, in accordance to the comparison.... is clumsy phrasing and wording
Page 8 line 5 perhaps insert the “here “ after results, referring to this study