Dear Dr.Björkqvist:
Both reviewers recommend the publication of your manuscript after minor corrections. Therefore, I am asking you to revise it by implementing the changes that you have described in your answers to the reviewers’ comments in the public discussion. Please provide a revised version (which accounts for all reviewers’ comments), a copy of your manuscript where all your changes are annotated and the list of your detailed answers to the reviewers’ comments (you may use the material published in the public discussion).

I am further asking you to extend the final discussion to the following issues.
1) Your results show clearly that the four datasets produce quite different estimates for the return time of the peak swh value on January 1st and you suggest that the Gumbel and Exponential produce the best fit. Could you please explain better the objective criterion that you use for discarding the results of the GDP and the GEV?
2) You produce a final estimate by averaging Gumbel and exponential. It is not actually clear to me which values you use for producing the 104 years (your final best estimate). What is the methodological basis of this average? how you estimate the corresponding 95% confidence range?
3) Usually, structural planning is interested mainly in assigning return times to selected thresholds, e.g. to 7, 8, 9 10 m swh. Could you produce a table to show the return period of selected thresholds according to the different datasets and methods? Could you discuss the implications of your results for these estimates?

Looking forward to receiving your revised manuscript
Best regards
Piero Lionello

Dear ……….
Dear Dr.Björkqvist:
I have no further comments on the revised version of your manuscript and I am happy to recommend your article for publication in NHESS.
I thank you for having considered NHESS for the publications of your research.
Best regards,
Piero Lionello