Please find the detailed comments in the supplement. 

This study aims to evaluate rogue wave indicators from global model data and validate them with buoy data. The authors do not recognize/acknowledge that the spectral models do not predict individual maximum wave heights, as reported by the buoy observations, but make predictions for ‘the expected maximum wave envelope height’. This is a conceptual misunderstanding. Much of the work seems to replicate the work by Cicon, et al (2023-2024). The major new finding is that the temporal evolution of the crest-trough correlation is a potent rogue-wave predictor. Unfortunately, this hypothesis is tested on a very limited subset of the available data set, only.

The manuscript contains many generic statements without any supporting references or discussion.  Interpretation of the results is often inconsistent with the data shown.

Ln 8, and throughout the manuscript: FOWD stands for ‘Free Ocean Wave Data’, not ‘Filtered …’.

P2, 2^nd paragraph. Please note, rogue waves are individual waves and are therefore not resolved in a spectral, phase-averaged wave model like ECMWF’s CY47R model. Increasing the spatial resolution cannot resolve ‘localized transient events such as rogue waves’. The model predicts expected maximum envelope wave heights, but this parameter is not correlated with rogue wave height or occurrence. (see Cicon et al, 2024).

Ln 57/ ln773: Reference for Donelan & Magnusson is incomplete: ‘A.A., 2.2’

P3, ln 77-91: Please state clearly what are the differences/advancements of this work compared to Cicon et al 2024.

Ln 90 – 91: ‘…their ability to capture real-world extreme wave events remains unproven…” Please clarify if you specifically mean ‘rogue waves ’. If this is the case the statement is incorrect. Cicon, et al 2024 did exactly that, showing that these parameters are not reliable predictors. 

Ln265-267, ln 271: It’s not obvious from Fig 1 that there are more rogue waves in winter. Contrary to the statement, the US west coast seems to have more rogue waves in summer.  

Ln 281: Please define ‘unstable sea conditions’.

Ln 295-303. The discussion of Fig 2 must be revised. There is a good agreement between FOWD and ERA5, contrary to the statement in the manuscript. Surprisingly, the high-resolution ECMWF hindcast shows the strongest ‘smooth out of extremes’.

Ln 303: According to Fig2, top panel the highest median value of Hmax is ~4m (Nov – Jan, both FOWD and ERA5). There are no median values in the 5-7m range (FOWD) or 4-6m range (models) as stated in the manuscript.

Ln 318-328: Again, the discussion is not consistent with the results shown in Fig 2. E.g. The median value of Hmax in Dec – Feb is highest in the ERA5 data, and very close to the value in FOWD.

Similarly, the range of the non-outlier Hs values is highest in ERA5, contrary to the claim that FOWD has the broadest distribution of Hs.

Ln 334-346: The whisker plots do not contain any information on rogue waves. Yu would have to include distributions of Hmax/Hs or distributions of rogue wave heights or occurrence rates to infer that information. Separate distributions of Hmax and Hs are not sufficient to infer Hmax/Hs- related distribution.

Fig3: Top row: Specify that FOWD and model definitions of maximum individual wave height are not the same. The plots compare maximum individual wave heights with maximum envelope wave height (see e.g. Cicon et al 2024).

Ln 379-384: Again, the model does not predict the height of individual waves. The fact that Hmax/Hs distributions in the models are narrow indicates that the maximum envelope height is closely correlated with the significant wave height. This is not the case for truly individual maximum wave heights (as reported in FOWD).

Fig 4: Suggestion: Adjust the scale of the x-axes to better show the differences in the distributions. E.g. there is no information outside 0<=Hmax/Hs<=3, or 0<=BFI<=1.5.

Ln 419-435: Interpretation of skewness and kurtosis is incorrect. The authors state that skewness ( kurtosis) are measures of the asymmetry (peakedness) of the wave energy spectrum.  Howver, thes statistical moments are related to the surface height distributions, not he wave energy. E.g. a typical wave energy spectrum (JONSAP or P-M) is always skewed. The discussion of Fig 4 needs to be rewritten. Also, the figure shows the ‘excess kurtosis’, which is kurtosis minus 3.

Ln468: suggestion “Hmax divided by Hs’ rather than  ‘just one divided by the other’

Ln 482: The discrepancy between FOWD and original CDIP is very surprising. FOWD is derived from CDIP data. Particularly, that Hmax in FOWD (green) is significantly higher than in CDIP (red) is hard to explain (see Fig 5 top left panel). If anything, FOWD would reject individual Hmax value but would not amplify them. Please make sure you are comparing data from the same buoys. If the discrepancies proof to be real, do you have any explanations for them?

Ln 490 – 493:  ‘… an increase in relative energy within 0.25-1.5Hz’  is contrary to ‘...redistribution of energy toward lower frequencies’. Please decide which of the two processes ‘… supports the formation of extreme, isolated waves’.

Ln 515-518: Please explain how ‘swell components reinforce the background wave spectrum’.  This is a very generic statement without any physical meaning. What is the ‘background wave spectrum’? What type of wave-wave interaction would transfer energy from low frequency to higher frequencies?

Ln 530-535: If I understand the work by Hafner, et al correctly, they do not claim a threshold behaviour of rogue wave occurrences based on crest-trough correlation r>0.6.  Rather, rogue-wave occurrences increase with increasing r-value; the probability for r~0.9 is about an order of magnitude greater than for r~0.1, but rogue waves are possible for any r-value.

Ln 535-571: The observation that a drop in crest-trough correlation followed by rapid increase as a precursor for rogue waves is very interesting and should be explored in more detail.

Ln 582-584: Very interesting result. Obviously, you should also check the null-hypothesis. How many ‘inverted peaks of r-values’ were NOT related to a rogue wave.

Ln 597-598: Note, you are comparing different parameters. The expression by Cicon et al give a probability, whereas your inverted peak hypothesis gives a binary result. Please rewrite.

Ln 605 – 689: The conclusions need to be completely rewritten since many of the claims in this manuscript do not hold ( see above). The main result is that the temporal evolution of the crest-trough correlation can serve as a practical predictor for rogue wave occurrence probability. This should be evaluated further.