Dear authors,
I have received the reviewer's comments regarding the corrections required for the publication of your manuscript. It seems that while you made some changes, you have ignored several of the reviewer's suggestions. In my opinion, there are still several concerns, which you should address before the manuscript is accepted.
Also, you must follow WES guidelines and include the reviewer's comments and your response to the comments in a single document. Otherwise, it is difficult and time consuming to check your response to previous comments.
Best regards,
Andrea Hahmann

I reviewed your new manuscript submission and your response to the reviewer comments. I find you have answered satisfactorily to most of the reviewer's concerns. But there are a couple of small sections where I would like to see some changes:

1. In L96, you write "the OCN measurement were one or two pixels away from the shore". I agree with the reviewer in this respect. I suggest that you write your argument regarding the averaging nature of the SAR measurements "As the product is already an average of SAR measurements..."

2. In L268-270, you write "... showed that there is a need to improve the algorithms used by the Sentinel-1 level 2 OCN product to process the raw SAR data, particularly at the edges of the swaths." Again, I do agree with the reviewer's comments. "The edge effects are inherent from the raw SAR observations, and it would therefore not help to modify the wind retrieval algorithms." Therefore, I find a more appropriate conclusion is that the user should be aware of the edge limitations of the data and filter the data accordingly. Please rephrase in the updated manuscript.

I would also request that you make some corrections to the manuscript following the WES guidelines (https://www.wind-energy-science.net/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html):
1. Please review the guidelines regarding standard units. There are inconsistencies throughout the manuscript. The figures and figure captions should also follow the instructions.
2. The labelling of the various panels in the figures and figure captions does not follow the WES standard. "Labels of panels must be included with brackets around letters being lowercase (e.g. (a), (b))."
3. Some references do not follow the WES standard, in particular the journal name abbreviations. Also, to facilitate the work of the reviewers, all the references must contain clickable DOIs or URLs when possible.

Dear authors,

I find that you have provided an adequate resolution to all questions. However, a few technical issues remain. The manuscript figures and figure captions don't follow the WES guidelines. Each panel in a multi-panel figure must contain a label (e.g. (a), (b)) and the figure caption must refer to these labels. Labels are missing in Fig 4, and both labels and mention in the figure caption are missing in figures 5-6, 9-10. The x-axis in figures 5-6 has no units. Finally, the correct form for units is m s^{-1} (the -1 is in superscript), not m/s.

please follow the comments of the associate editor, than the paper can be accepted