Bergmann (2006) has raised a number of questions about my paper on the neutral, barotropic planetary boundary layer (PBL) capped by a low-level inversion (Hess, 2004). I would like to respond by first discussing the purpose of the paper and some of the assumptions of the models. In a series of papers (Garratt and Hess, 2002; Hess and Garratt, 2002a, b) we examined experimental evidence based on integral measurements of the PBL obtained in conditions thought to be nearly steady, homogenous, neutral and barotropic. We have demonstrated that simple analytical and first-order turbulent closure models of the planetary boundary layer were able to better simulate the experimental results than more advanced models, such as second-order closure (SOC), large-eddy simulations (LES) and direct numerical simulations (DNS). We attributed this finding to two factors. The simpler models were matched to atmospheric boundary-layer observations by fitting (at least) one free parameter in the turbulent closure. The more advanced models either used more general conditions to determine the turbulent closure parameters, or, as in the case of DNS, had no free parameters. The second factor was that all of the meteorological data that we were able to locate probably did not satisfy the strict assumptions of steady, homogeneous, neutral, barotropic conditions of the idealized PBL. This ideal case does not seem to exist in the atmosphere, or is so rare that it has not been well observed. Zilitinkevich and Esau (2002) have suggested the above idealizations should be relaxed and two types of neutral PBLs should be distinguished: truly neutral cases where the fluid is neutrally stratified throughout and conventionally neutral cases where the neutral flow develops against a background of stable stratification. The atmospheric neutral PBL is almost