Ensemble Hindcasting of Coastal Wave Heights

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors bring forward a solid statistical engineering solution to an important engineering problem of understanding the extremes in wave height distributions. I strongly recommend the paper for publication but there are a few issues that I feel should be addressed, either directly or in discussion.

1. Standard errors must be included for all parameter estimates throughout the paper. 

2. Uncertainty quantification for the return levels depicted in Figure 5.1 should be included.

3. On line 129, where does the value of c come from?

4. On line 140, what is the sample size for each group. 

5. On line 219, why a cut-off for a VIF of 30, which seems extremely high.

6. Why keep the "day of year" as an important time consideration, and requiring the ensemble average for each day? You could also form one aggregate series by concatenating the windy season, and the calm seasons. Yes, you would have a small blip for the short segment of time where you concatenate but this influence most likely will be mitigated by the long time series. The advantage is a model driven purely by the dynamics that does not rely on the day-of-year. It also would not require perturbations for leap-years. A discussion of this point might be worthwhile for the readers. Or as a statement of future work. I do not recommend re-working the analysis as the paper is strong as it is. 

7. Another discussion point to consider, is whether major weather cycles such as El-Nino and El-Nina would impact the findings or analysis. Again, simply providing expert insight to the reader on such potential issues is all the paper requires. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and suggestions are attached in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present version can be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language is necessary.