First concern relates with the argument of this work, which to me does not seem well related with this journal. As from the journal’s homepage, “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) is a not-for-profit international scientific journal dedicated to the publication and public discussion of high-quality studies investigating the Earth's atmosphere and the underlying chemical and physical processes. It covers the altitude range from the land and ocean surface up to the turbopause, including the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere.
The main subject areas comprise atmospheric modelling, field measurements, remote sensing, and laboratory studies of gases, aerosols, clouds and precipitation, isotopes, radiation, dynamics, biosphere interactions, and hydrosphere interactions (for details see journal subject areas). The journal scope is focused on studies with important implications for our understanding of the state and behaviour of the atmosphere.” Here, the authors have used different machine learning algorithms to investigate the wind energy resource in China, so the connection with the above is not totally convincing. Also because the authors never try to connect or motivate their findings, for instance the construction of the algorithms, with some known physical process and the discussion mostly is narrowed on statistical parameters to compare the results obtained by the algorithms.
Second point is that although they present limitations coming from the use of ERA5 reanalysis due to its coarse resolution, they have used this dataset for information on local parameters, such as surface roughness, friction, besides wind speed so I do not understand how they can overcome those limitations with their method. In my opinion, at least some of these parameters would need much fine resolution to be representative of the site.
In any case, as regards the revision, the authors have tried to address all the comments from the two reviewers. Grammatical and spelling mistakes are still there, both in the original and in the newly added or modified parts. In reference to my previous question 4 (A strong limitation of the work is that the comparison of observations with model estimations is carried out at a single location, whereas the retrievals are then used at eight different stations. It is not clear if the results obtained at the single station, from which a single ML algorithm was selected, also apply to the other stations, and why.), I am not satisfied with the answer as it refers to a general statement on the method not specific to this work.
Also the response to question 5 (What do you mean by “goal of carbon emission peak”? Revise) is not satisfying since it refers to a policy perhaps well known for Chinese but not to the general reader. Finally, response to question 45 (Lines 248-257: The explanation is not clear: revise. Also, I don’t understand the need to discuss the difference (a sort of mean bias) when you were discussing the RMSE and R values. Also, it would be needed to understand if the fitting and comparison of model estimations with observations vary with hour of the day, season, or other factors. Also, the discussion could be improved because for instance from Figure 5 I can observe that: RF model is the best but tends to overestimate small values and underestimate high values; similar discussions also for the other models.) is not convincing enough because it does not explain why there are different effects of the seasonal variability on the various models (some are not affected). Also, it does not focus on the subdiurnal variability.
Based on the above comments, my recommendation is for a new revision of this manuscript before acceptance.
Line 9: Perhaps you mean “goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions”?
Line 11: change “the” with “a”
Lines 40-43: Quite simplicist explanation.
Line 64: What is the “peak carbon dioxide emissions”? It is not clear to the non-Chinese reader.
Lines 82-85: Revise this sentence, there is no principal sentence.
Lines 92-93: WRF is just one of the regional/mesoscale models available. Need to clarify better this aspect and the comparison with ERA5 (based on reanalysis and not on a simulation)
Line 94: Not relevant if you do not specify which are those limitations.
Lines 127-134: Geographic information and background are not enough for a non-chinese reader.
Line 218: change “need” to “needs”
Lines 589-595: What about the output data and the codes used in this work?