Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In section 2.1 the author mentions that ERA 5 database was used as a boundary condition in the outside-port. Is important to note that ERA5 is a reanalysis data base, not measurements and not necessary is able to correctly represent the boundary condition for a local model without any downscaling technique applied before use it.

According to the last paragraph, ¿is there any calibration and validation of the wave parameters from ERA 5 with measurements near to the site?

 In section 2.2, the author mentions that the JONSWAP frecuency spectrum is used, but did not say nothing about the directional spreading. Also is necessary that the authors says what is the water depth in the bounday condition in order to verify is JONSWAP can be applied or must to be changed for TMA frecuency spectrum.

 In Figure 2, please add the correlation coefficient.

 Regarding to the correlation of the analysys between the SWASH model and the buoy, the authors must to mentioned why they are not compare the other waves parameters, like wave period and wave direction.

Have a good correlation just for a Wave Height, just menning that the total modeled energy are good enough, but the authors or the user of this information, can not know if the waver period an the wave direction are well defined as well.

According to the last paragraph, ¿is there any calibration and validation of the wave period an wave direction?

 In section 4.1.2, this reviewer suggests expanding the explanation of the results, and improve the analysis.

 In section 4.2, this reviewer suggests use the data as a x axis in the Figure 10 and include a correlation analysis of both wave height time series.

In chapter 5. This reviewer recommends to improve the discussion because was writer as a summary. The authors must compare his results with some similar or equivalent research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes an interesting algorithm to predict wave. It's well written with very good presentations of the data and results. The only concern I have is the limited choice of the case (a port in Sri Lanka), but understandably, it is the method that is of importance.

However, the rather abrupt introduction in the second sentence to bring out the port is not necessary. To present it in the data section is enough.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf