I'm broadly happy that you have taken into account both referees' comments; the MS is much improved.

I have reread the MS myself, however, and I am concerned that in the Discussion you state 'in this study we were not able to identify the vertical motion in the model solution associated with small scale eddies. The fact can be explained by the effect of parameterization of convective processes...'
By moving from 2 km to 0.5 km I would certainly expect that you could see a more vigorous vertical velocity field, associated with the 1--2 km eddies that you should now be able to resolve. You do need to discuss the differences in vertical velocities between the resolutions. I think your discussion of convective parametrisation here is irrelevant: convective plumes typically have O(1) aspect ratio, so with ML depths of 50--100m would require ~10--25 m lateral resolution to resolve.

Can you rewrite this paragraph please, focusing on the differences in vertical velocity, and removing the (in my view) irrelevant line of argument discussing the convection?

Also, please make Referee 2's changes to the revised MS when you resubmit it.

Best regards, George Nurser.