Spatial Probability Characteristics of Waves Generated by Polar Lows in Nordic and Barents Seas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please refer to the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents the spatial distributions of numerical probabilities of ocean significant waveheight due to polar lows in the nordic and barents seas. While I am not able to follow the detailed derivations in section 3 due to my own unfamiliarity with the cited references, the comparison with Rojo's PL data is credible. A concern I have is that there is no similar comparison with data for SWH, but the paper is otherwise self contained. I would note that the same altimetry dataset used for Fig 6 will also have SWH data, albeit averaged over rather large 80km bins. In summary, while I would have preferred some validation of the SWH probability maps, I understand that it might be a separate paper in itself.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer Final Decision: Reject (Manuscript ID 2327496)
In my opinion, there are two major issues with the model used in this study. Firstly, the model was unable to accurately represent the basic wave height distribution and essential patterns in the case study. Evaluation of statistical or numerical models is typically based on a comparison with observed or reanalyzed data. However, the comparison results in Figures 3 (i-j) and 4 (i-j) suggest that the model did not capture the wave and wind characteristics in this area. The differences between the model-based distribution pattern and intensity (i.e. Max U10, Sig.WH) and the ECMWF field are too large. Even ignoring the distribution pattern, the maximum difference between the model and ECMWF data can reach the maximum range of wind speed or wave height.
Secondly, there is a notable difference between the model and buoy data in Figures 5 and 7. Specifically, all event numbers from the model were 4-5 times higher than those from the buoys. For example, when H > 6 in Fig. 5, the model showed 3-4 events while the buoy showed only 0.86 in the triangle area. When H > 8, the model value was about 1.5-2 while the buoy event was 0.36. Although Figure 7 shows a slight improvement, the difference is still too large. This highlights the need for further adjustment or changes to the model for the future study.
In light of these issues, I find it difficult to accept the current manuscript as a research paper in this scientific journal. While the objective of the study was to generate spatial probabilities of PL-generated surface waves of different height and wavelength, it is unclear whether the model used in this work accurately captured the basic wave height and distribution patterns. Therefore, the statements in the conclusion part may not hold scientific significance. -The End-
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
