Response to Reviewer 1.

Thank you for your thorough and helpful review of this manuscript. With respect to the comments in the review, all line numbers given for the revised manuscript refer to lines in the tracked-changes manuscript.

General comments:

1/The goals for the field campaign and background understanding of the lake breeze effect have been added to the revised manuscript. 

The goals of the campaign were to: a) characterize lake breeze characteristics of near shore circulation onset and vertical shape along the shoreline of Lake Michigan, b) capture the development or movement of convergence zones/fine scale circulations within the lake-breeze frontal region from offshore to onshore over time and c) monitor ozone gradients, characteristics of chemical circulation patterns within marine-influenced inversions at the shoreline at low altitudes. See P2 lines 39-51

2/Language to describe the utility of the dataset to the greater scientific community has been added to the revised manuscript. These data sets can be used in a variety of ways to better understand the meteorology and pollution episodes at the Lake Michigan shoreline. The Lidar WindPRO data and RAAVEN data provide complete coverage of the atmospheric dynamics of the marine layer such that it can be characterized and modeled (Wagner et al., 2022; Jozef et al., submitted); Those characterizations could be used to test the fidelity of operational meteorological models (such as HRRR) in modeling the stable boundary layer height. The data sets can also be used to test models for the roughness parameterizations in a shoreline environment using overwater and overland turbulences. The combination of ozone data with the meteorological data can be used to constrain air quality models for the chosen mixing volume for chemical processing in the atmosphere, using the FOAM model (Vermeuel et al., 2019) or testing vertical grid-scale sizing of nested high resolution models for their ability to reproduce the gradients in ozone as measured using UAS (Abdi-Oskouei et al., 2020). The lake breeze phenomenon is similar to bay breeze and sea breeze circulations that complicate modeling efforts in other shoreline locations impacted by poor air quality (Caicedo et al., 2021; Geddes et al., 2021) and model fidelity is crucial to the development of appropriate emissions controls in these environments. See P4 lines 111-124.

Specific comments:

1/ The selection of the time period for the campaign was dictated by capturing a combination of lake breeze and ozone events. We determined an acceptable window for operations from May 23-June 14 based on systems availability and the higher frequency of high ozone and lake breeze events occurring in this region during late spring/ early summer (see Cleary 2022 Atmospheric Environment, SI for a list of high ozone events for the years 2013-2019 at Chiwaukee Prairie). Once the window was approaching, the team used the RAQMS forecast model and consulted with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Air Quality Division’s meteorologist (who does internal ozone forecasting for the division) to decide on a “go time” to initiate deployment from all collaboration partners. The go time required evidence that synoptic flow would have a southerly component for a few days (normally brought about by a high-pressure system over the Ohio River Valley) with limited precipitation events. During the campaign, flight days were cancelled when operations would be in extreme weather or under conditions that were well outside of the goals (to capture lake breeze and to capture lake breeze with high ozone). See P 18 lines 304-313.

2/ Page 7 line 142 (Now P21 lines 339-340): The request is to report the saving frequencies for instrumentation. The saving frequency for instrumentation for the RAAVEN is given in lines 357-365 and the saving frequency for instrumentation on the M210 is given in lines 492-493 and units were changed from intervals in s to Hz.

3/ Section 3 has been moved. Please see revised manuscript.

4/ Thank you for this suggestion – we now have a separate section for interpreted results starting on Line 584 on P32.

P 32 lines 584-608 now include interpreted results.

Technical comments

1/ Page 2 line 38: please correct “on shoreline” by “on the shoreline”. Done

2/ Page 2 line 63: (now line 78) please correct “night time” by nighttime”.  Done

3/ Page 3 line 68: (now line 83) Please correct “Incorporation” by “The incorporation”. Done

4/ Page 3 line 80: (now P4 line 95-96) Please correct “up to planetary boundary layer” by “ up to the planetary boundary layer”. Done

5/ Page 4 line 104: (now P16 line 288-289) Please correct “near to the WiDNR” by “ near the WiDNR”. Done

6/ Page 6 line 120: (now P 18 line 313) Please correct “cancelled” by “ canceled”. Done

Response to Reviewer 2

We thank the reviewer for their thorough examination of this manuscript.

In response to the general comment: the data from this field campaign is targeted in better understanding the role of lake breeze on shoreline ozone concentrations. The vertical structure obtained from the measurements will allow investigations into the dimensions of the stable boundary layer, the height of which can be modeled using a Richardson Number. Such investigations can be used in comparison to current weather forecasting models to test the validity in a shoreline environment. The vertical profile of ozone and meteorological variables allows for a nuanced understanding of the changes to stratification and vertical mixing occur as an air mass moves from over-water to over-land and how the coastal interface plays a role in pollutant mixing within the marine layer and lake breeze movement. Understanding the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the lake breeze phenomena can also inform model resolution improvements in this area impacted by high ozone, where 1.3 km grid scale models are only now starting to capture the lake breeze adequately. See revised manuscript P4-5, lines 111-124.

All specific comments have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

P 2, Line 46, (now lines 58-59): “volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)” is added

P 2, line 50, (now P2 line 63): Deleted comma.

P 3, line 89-90, (now P 4-5 lines 111-125): Additional definitions given along with how the measurements can be used.

P 4, line 101, (now P16 lines 283-285): The 8-hour design value for the site is given along with the 8-hour federal ozone standard.

P 6: line 117-119: (Figure 5 has been added, now on P19): The shoreline monitor ozone was not modeled well, although the model predicted high ozone over the lake and the meteorological forecast suggested the possibility of a shallow lake breeze on May 22^nd and 24^th. Lines 304-313 on P18 accompany this new figure.

P 6, Table 1 (now P 19): language in the caption indicates patterns A and B are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 caption also gives the color schemes for Pattern A and B.

Page 8, Figure 2 (Now Figure 6, P21):  Figures 6 and 7 have “normalized probabilities” that are constructed so that the integral curve is equal to 1.  Here, the value provided for a given bin is the number of elements in a given bin divided by the total number of elements in the input data. See figure caption.

Page 9 Figure 3 (Now Figure 7, P23):  The figure has been updated to include the letters, as recommended.

Page 10, line 161 (now P5 line 134): units are corrected.

Page 15, Figure 5 (Now Figure 2, P12): Changed.

Page 17, Figure 6 (Now Figure 3, P15): Changed.

Page 18, Line 333 (Now P 24, lines 384-387):  This text describes the procedure applied, not a single equation or relationship for the entire dataset.  This procedure is applied independently to each flight to account for differences resulting from weather conditions and location-specific GPS offsets for a given flight that may impact the accuracy of the altitude estimate.  Therefore, it is not practical to show a single figure or single equation, as there will be slight differences from one flight to the next.

Page 20, Figure 7 (Now Figure 8, P 26):  We have updated the figure and associated caption to make the one-to-one line red.

Page 21, Line 383-384 (Now P 27 lines 439-445):  The relative humidity values from the multihole pressure probe (MHP) are significantly impacted by the exposure of that sensor to sunlight and the associated impact on sensor temperature.  This is not corrected for, resulting in large fluctuations in the RH values at times.  As a result, this measurement (from the MHP) only provides a reality check to ensure that the RSS-421 is reporting something that is in line with the general reality, and therefore such a large offset (15%) is allowed.  The more important comparison is between the two RSS-421 sensors, which should agree much more closely, as they are the same sensor type, and are mounted within close proximity of one another.  Historical comparisons between the sensors across a wide variety of environmental regimes have led us to understand that 6% is an acceptable threshold for this comparison.

Page 23, Line 454 (now P 29 line 514): 2 flights did not recover iMET data because of a loss in battery power.