|The manuscript has considerably improved. The revised version includes reflections to most of my comments to the first version as well as a number of valuable adjustments and amendments according to the recommendations of the other referee. There are still a few concerns and several mostly minor issues that need adjustment before the manuscript can be accepted.|
It is said both in Abstract and Conclusions that the event addressed in the manuscript “provoked a severe storm surge in February 2002“. Please insert the relevant information (how high surge and where was observed) or just say it was a relatively strong storm event. For example, nothing specific happened in Latvian waters.
Modelled wave heights above 11 m in some ensemble members: I agree with the explanation of the authors that (i) some realisations of wind fields contained wind speeds of 28 m/s and such winds may drive very high waves in the Baltic Sea, (ii) the use of constant roughness length over the sea surface in the wave model could unrealistically contribute to the wave energy growth, and (iii) as a result, the spread of the ensemble may be fairly large (e.g., page 11, lines 20-23). However, point (ii) in plain English means that the used model setup most likely systematically overestimates wave heights in some storms, including the analysed event. I strongly recommend to say that explicitly both in the body text and in conclusions.
Lines 4-7 of Abstract are too unspecific. Consider saying, for example: “In this study, we apply an atmospheric downscaling to (i) add regional details to the wind field, (ii) increase the temporal resolution of the wind fields, (iii) provide a more detailed representation of transient events such as storms, and (iv) generate ensembles with perturbed atmospheric conditions which allow for a spatiotemporally variable uncertainty estimation.” Also please insert the explanation of WRF already in Abstract.
Consider saying “in the Baltic Sea” in the title
The style of using -isa/iza- etc. should be unified. For example, there is “realisations” on page 1, line 19 but “parameterizations” on page 2, line 17.
Page 3, line 25 and in several occasions below: as the length of a degree along latitudes and along longitudes differs by a factor of ~2 in the Baltic Sea region, please make sure to the readers that the grid cells in the used models have quite large aspect ratio, the length of their sides in N-S direction roughly twice as long as in the E-W directions. Also, consider using the degree sign instead of deg in the entire manuscript.
Page 3, line 29: probably should be “and interpolated”
Page 4, line 27: use Greek $\eta$
Page 5, line 11: must be “unrealistic”
Page 7, lines 13-15: the sentence is unclear, in particular the expression “why some directions”.
Page 7, lines 18-19: The LAF ensemble not only shows a very small spread. It is obviously underdispersive (and saying that “an indication that these ensembles could be underdispersive” is probably not sufficient). And this is by no means good from the viewpoint of forecast or hindcast.
Page 7, line 20: Here and in several occasions below (page 11, line 13; page 11, line 16; page 17, lines 4, 7, and possibly in some other locations) the use of the word “comparable” is not appropriate. It is possible to compare quantities that differ by tens and hundreds of times. Please be more specific and use, whenever applicable, quantitative comparisons.
Page 8, lines 14-15: I do not recognise the point of the sentence “Comparing a ten with a thirty member ensemble is not really a fair comparison.”
Page 8, line 15: delete “number”; ‘approach 6’ is enough
Page 9, line 1: delete “of all ensemble members”
Page 9, lines 3 and 4: delete “number”; ‘approach 6’ is enough
Page 9, line 9: replace “station” by “location”
Page 11, line 2: probably “variability in (wind and) wave properties” is meant
Page 11, line 4: probably “position of wave height maxima” or similar is meant
Page 11, line 8: “is in this region with” does not make sense to me; probably “represent” is meant
Page 12, line 1: remove “the fact”
Page 13, line 10: remove the second “apply”
Page 14, line 6: please give an extended formula for the expression (500//N); I guess that most of the potential readers do not associate it with math/combinatorics.
Page 14, line 13: should be “a higher”
Page 15, line 4: remove “’numerical”, replace “can be counted in seconds” by “is less than a minute” and say “few minutes” at the end of the line
Page 15, line 8: explain SST
Page 15, line 10: should be “an erroneous”
Page 16, last sentence to the caption of Fig. 10 could be simply “The northern part of the Gulf of Bothnia is covered by sea ice”
Page 16, line 4: better say “high resolution setup”
Page 16, line 5: better remove “what explains the higher but also the lower wave heights” and say: “Wave height maxima …”
Page 17, line 16: consider saying “than the one obtained using”
Page 18, line 4: consider saying “difference in wave heights between simulations using 5 and 60”