The upper air validation presented is not intended to be a comprehensive model analysis, but rather to provide preliminary comparisons between model results and observations not previously described in the literature. The datasets analyzed and model configurations used here are shared publicly to enable further validation by those interested in performing more in-depth upper air analyses.

Gravity wave analysis using radiosonde data was performed for the 2019 campaign, described in detail by Colligan et al. 2020, and cited in this work. Given the present paper's focus on model validation and not on gravity waves, in depth gravity wave analysis using model data is beyond the scope of this work, though may be a focus of future manuscripts authored by the 2020 campaign teams and collaborators. Accordingly, gaps between results presented here and goals of the field campaigns are envisioned to be addressed in subsequent manuscripts.

The authors appreciate this feedback.

As the paper states: “This study presents basic WRF-eclipse model validation of not only surface variables but also – for the first time – preliminary validation using profile comparisons.” This paper is not intended to provide an in depth evaluation of all the profiles collected, but rather is a just a preliminary evaluation of the WRF model performance with more extensive analysis to follow. 

We have chosen to represent uncertainties through MAE and RMSE instead of confidence intervals as we are not endeavoring to provide a full assessment of model performance, but only the error with our small sample size. A more extensive analysis with a larger sample size can follow this paper. The number of data points considered are limited to those represented in Figures 5 and 6, thus warranting the further analysis we suggest. A revised version of the manuscript will adjust the language used to reflect the authors acknowledgment of the limitations of the small sample size of the present analysis.