The research presented in Mughal et al. (2019) was supported by the National Research Foundation Singapore (NRF) under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) programme and its Intra-CREATE Collaborative Grant "Cooling Singapore." Overall, the commenter stressed validation, and indeed more validation is better. But in an urban context, with such large heterogeneity, it will be almost impossible to validate the model for all the different urban configurations. Even if the model is validated for a low-rise neighborhood of Singapore, it does not necessarily mean that the model will perform well for a high-rise, densely developed district. Similarly, obtaining temperature measurements in the urban canopy conforming with the standard requirement for urban measurement sitting (Oke et al., 2006) may be difficult due to the strong spatial variability of the temperature field. The spatial applicability of the point measurement in the canopy will be then limited, and, in principle, we could not directly compare point measurements of temperature against the 300-m spatial average provided by the mesoscale model. This means that in urban areas the model will be inevitably used for configurations where it has not been fully validated. But does this mean that model results are useless in these cases? We do not think so. Numerical models are grounded on physical principles and convey our best understanding of how the atmosphere interacts with the earth surface. They can be used to interpret measurements and to guide new field campaigns. If models show counterintuitive results in some places, this can be a motivation to perform dedicated field campaigns to check if the model is right, and if it is not these results can be used to improve the model formulation or setup. The commenter asserts that environmental point measurements are the "real world." This is generally true, but the information given by point measurements is necessarily incomplete in space and time. For many applications, we need a complete representation of the atmosphere in space and time, and this is something that, today, can be accessed only with models. A well-tested and well calibrated simulation model can be a good representation of the three-dimensional real world, its dynamics and its responses to the possible future perturbations (Zannetti, 1970). Even in environmental research, models are often validated against other models of different theoretical backgrounds as opposed to full-scale measurements; for example, computational fluid dynamics are usually tested against wind tunnel studies.