A Multidecadal Assessment of Mean and Extreme Wave Climate Observed at Buoys off the U.S. East, Gulf, and West Coasts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

-       Paper overall should be revised for clarity and conciseness. Much of it is bogged down by unnecessary information and supplementary figures that could be simplified and condensed into a more manageable form.

-       Figure labels for Figure 6, 9, and those like it must be improve. Color coding of buoy numbers clearing indicates region, but that is best put on the figure on the y axis as well. That would make it infinitely easier to interpret the figures.

-       There seems to be an overreliance on information in the supporting material, which makes the paper difficult to follow. Much of the information in the supporting material also feels superfluous.

-       I understand that previous studies have used 40% and 80% data availability as threshold criteria, but where do these numbers come from? Are they statistically based or arbitrary? Did the authors test their analysis on multiple thresholds (not just 40% or 80%) to see if there was a method that provided the most robust results?

-       Given the length of time series being analyzed and the availability of altimetry data, have the authors considered a comparison with results? This would be of interest to both the in situ obs people and the altimetry community, and would not be entirely beyond the scope of this analysis.

-       The results section feels very list-like (Figure 3 shows x, Figure 4 shows y, etc.). This feels repetitive to the reader and should be revised.

-       Frequently in the results section the authors will make a statement and then instead of citing the appropriate paper in the same sentence, proceed to explain the main conclusions of the paper in the next few sentences (e.g., X happens. Doe et al., (2023) identified x, y, and z in the Southern Ocean.) This breaks up the flow of the paper and reads more like a literature review than a true discussion. This should be revised so as not to break up the flow of the manuscript. Some explanation and elaboration is good, but having it happen after almost every citation disrupts the flow of the manuscript more than is pleasant for the reader. (Note: some of this is stylistic.)

-        It is unclear why Figure 5 is included in the text while Figure S3 is not. Could they not be combined in some manner to streamline this analysis?

-       Section 3.3 cold season/warm season delineation is not clear and easy to miss. Should use additional subheadings (i.e., 3.3.1.1) instead, or at the very least italics.

-       The decadal trends section feels somewhat disjointed and all over the place, with most of the analysis seeming to explain why their results are different from seemingly every other study of this nature conducted. This may be because the authors frequently list past studies’ results before stating their own and how their results differ from these past results.

Author Response

Response to the reviewer comments are in the PDF attached here. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Major revision is suggested. Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to the reviewer comments are in the PDF attached here. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The present version can be accepted.