Review of egusphere-2023-1212 manuscript

I read the paper “Integration of microseism, wavemeter buoy, HF Radar and hindcast data to analyze the Mediterranean cyclone Helios” with great interest. The authors studied the features of the Mediterranean cyclone Helios by a multiparametric approach combining microseism results with sea state and meteorological data provided by wavemeter buoy, HF Radar, hindcast maps and satellite SEVIRI images.

My general impression is that the article is rather well written, indeed only specific parts of the manuscript need to be revised. As highlighted by the authors, the analysis of the Mediterranean cyclone Helios was very important because it has caused heavy rainfall, strong wind gusts and violent storm surge although not able to reach the fully Medicane characteristics, remaining a rather weak sub-tropical system. The authors aim at studying and monitoring the Mediterranean cyclones through microseism and its integration with sea state data. The paper presents scientific novelties and then it can be published. However, it needs a minor revision before being accepted.

Substantive comments – In the revised manuscript , the parts that need to be rephrased are underlined in blue and highlighted in orange.

• Lines 71 → 73: The sentence “This method, called cyclone phase space analysis, relies on a large spectrum of different cyclone types in a way to form a continuum between tropical and extratropical cyclones.” needs to be specified more clearly. Please rewrite it.
• Lines 102 → 105: The sentence “primary microseism (PM), that shows the same period as the oceanic waves (13 ‑ 20 s) and low amplitudes, and is generated by the energy transfer of oceanic waves breaking against the shoreline (Ardhuin et al., 2015; Hasselmann, 1963).” should be supported by more references, as Lepore and Grad (2018).
• Lines 240 → 242: In the sentence “Each dot, in Figure 4, represents a seismic station and the color of the dot relates to the corresponding RMS amplitude at that location, as specified in the color bar.”, you should widen the description of Figure 4, otherwise it is difficult to understand its connection with the rest of the paragraph.
• Line 333 → 334: I believe it is very important adding something concerning the innovative features of the i‑waveNET at this point of the manuscript.
• Lines 393 → 397: The sentence “In particular, during the Medicane Apollo, the analysis did not show a significant amplitude increase in the PM band, while during the subtropical system Helios, the RMS amplitude time series for the PM (Supplementary Figure 2), although with two orders of magnitude smaller, showed a trend similar to the SM (Figure 3) and SPSM (Supplementary Figure 1) ones.” lacks of clarity in the comparison between Apollo and Helios. Please rewrite that part.
• Lines 463 → 465: The sentence “Concerning the array techniques, we chose to focus on the SM band since, according to the information from the ARF, we expect reliable localizations only on the PM and SM bands, while for the SPSM band appears spatial aliasing.” does not specify why the authors chose to focus only on the SM bands notwithstanding also the PM band gives reliable localization. Please specify better.
• Lines 568 → 570: The sentence “In particular, the HF radar and the hindcast maps exhibit an SWH of about 6 meters while the wavemeter buoy shows an SWH of about 3 meters” is not clearly discussed in the rest of the manuscript.

Technical corrections – In the revised manuscript, the parts needing corrections are marked in purple; furthermore, the parts that should be deleted are crossed out in blue. Corrections are reported in the  shape of pop-up yellow notes. In the following, the lines are listed needing modifications.

• ABSTRACT, line 29.
• INTRODUCTION, lines 58, 69 and 122.
• SUB-TROPICAL SYSTEM “HELIOS”, line 143.
• CONCLUSIONS, lines 572, 576, 577 and 578.

I am not very familiar with Seismic data, so my understanding of the article may be lacking.

1. There are too many references in the paper, so it is suggested that the author focus more on the relevant references of the research content and delete irrelevant parts.
2.  It is recommended to describe the data and then give the main purpose of the data
3. Part 3.3 only introduces what the figure shows, and does not specifically analyze the details and possible reasons of the figure pattern.
4. The black solid line in Figure 3 is not only indicated in the text, but also suggested in the figure illustration.