This work provides a 1km-resolution climate dataset from January 1991 to December 2022 for the Sierra Nevada mountain range in Spain. This high-resolution dataset will help to study the impacts of climate change on the botany, ecology and other aspects of mountainous regions.

The dataset was generated using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model with lateral boundary conditions given by the ERA5 reanalysis. The configuration of the WRF model is clearly described. The quality of the dataset is carefully evaluated. The climate variables of the dataset are well introduced.

General comments:

• Do the authors think that assimilating station data into WRF simulations will improve data quality? There could be some discussion at the end of the paper.
• The authors clearly described how the WRF model is configured and listed relevant references. However, as a non-expert in this model, I would have appreciated a bit more information on the justification of the configuration chosen by the authors and how well the WRF model simulates mountain climates in general.
• There seems to be some data (daily primary climate variables) missing at
  • Longitude: -3.296478271484375, Latitude: 37.09039306640625
  • Longitude: -3.352783203125, Latitude: 37.099708557128906
  • Longitude: -3.465118408203125, Latitude: 37.16318893432617
  • Longitude: -3.476409912109375, Latitude: 37.16325378417969

HighResClimNevada.GFAT-UGR.ECMWF-ERA5.Evaluation.WRF433.day.tasmax.1991010100-2022123100.nc (day 1)

Specific comments:

• Line 23-24: “For precipitation, variable, more uncertain and difficult to characterize, HighResClimNevada exhibits a higher amount of precipitation when compared to station-based, coarse satellite-based, and reanalysis-based products.” This relates to the second general comment. How sensitive are the results to the model configuration? Is the chosen configuration optimal?
• Line 176-177: Why were temperature observations from only two stations used?
• Table 2: Is there information on the number of stations in the second column?
• Line 314-315: In addition to the citation, is it possible to describe briefly how to obtain the pseudo-PDFs?
• Line 480: Is it possible to provide a link to the data download page?
• Figure 6: Black is used to define two things.

Technical corrections:

• Line 38 and 40: Missing space at “(Parmesan, 2006).For” and “(Beniston, 2003).This”
• Line 76-79: Inconsistent use of “.” and “;”
• Figure 4: One dataset name in the caption and plot title does not match (GFAT-grid -> UGR-SNGrid)

Please take a look at the attached PDF for my comments on the manuscript.