Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper highlights the importance of the rescue and preservation of the historical records. I think this paper is worth of publication.

Author Response

We very much thank the positive response of the reviewer, much appreciated. We improved the manuscript by addressing the points raised by reviewers 2 and 3. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file for a detailed report on the paper

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

We have addressed the comments/suggestions of reviewer 2 in the attached .pdf file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a position paper where the authors illustrate the need for rescuing historical climatological records gathered in the past, especially marine documents like logbooks. The process of digitization of these documents will make them available to scientific communities. The authors provide a few examples of logbooks and discuss some efforts in this direction, concluding that more funds must be made available for this purpose.

The paper is well-written, and the authors' position is clear and shareable. However, my major concern is how to use these records to reconstruct past climate due to time and spatial discontinuity, which is typical of a naval journey. Doubts may arise about the quality of these records, or at least for some of them. I think that the authors should discuss, at least in one or two sentences in the conclusions, possible drawbacks and how they can be overcome.

Author Response

We have addressed the comments/suggestions of reviewer 3 in the attached .pdf file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf