|I’m very happy with the revised manuscript. It was already relevant, but the improved embedding in the literature and the updated discussion throughout the manuscript make it much more credible. I’d like to compliment the authors on their thoroughness in addressing the feedback on an earlier version. That said, on reading the manuscript again I stumbled upon a few minor issues, and I’d like to give the authors a chance to address these before the manuscript enters the editorial process. They are listed below.|
Fig 6, 10, 11, 12. I find these overlaid bar plots rather difficult to read. Red is much more pronounced than blue. The (irrelevant) vertical lines on the bars clutter the figure and distract from the important parts. Perhaps consider changing the plot type to line/scatter?
P9 L170: “but it may” instead of “but may”?
Fig 9f: why did you choose to show the shear exponent on the x-axis, rather than the wind speed gradient itself?
P14 L222: “… reasons for having events being observed” please consider rewriting this sentence.
P14 Section 3.4: The content is fine, but the readability of this paragraph is a bit less pleasant than the rest of the manuscript.
Fig 11a: maybe add a note that this figure may not be entirely representative for the climatology, since inter-annual variability can be substantial?
Fig 11b: I find it a bit confusing that a polar plot is used here. So far that’s only been used for directions. If the reason is that time is circular, then 11a should also be a polar plot. But I think a normal Cartesian plot is easier to interpret. If you decide keep the polar plot, consider rotating it such that it aligns with an analogue clock.
Fig 12a: The legend doesn’t correspond with the line types shown in the figure
Fig 12: VLLJ -> LLJ in legend of a, y-axis of b, and x-axis of c. Also fig 13 legend.
Fig 12b: why is there no KDE fit here?
P16 L266: “monotonic shear profiles not included”. Why not? So do I interpret this correctly that the “no-shear” and “LLJ” do not add up to 100%, because the monotonic high shear profiles are excluded? Or is it “LLJ” vs “everything else”? The latter seems to be implied in L264.
P17 L278: “comprise of” is this grammatically correct?
P18 L301: “Expanding to consider … it may not be a good characterization of all events”. What does “it” refer to? The entire synoptic setup with a low and high pressure system, or the additional strengthening and eastward propagation? If it is the latter, please clarify the sentence. If it is the former, it seems to contradict previous statements about 75% of the events.
P18 L306: “not shown is the wind shift”. But this has now been added to the figure, right? Maybe consider labeling the panels from a – h instead of 2 x (a – d). That would make it easier to refer to them.
P18 L315: I’m not sure what “shortwave troughs” are. Can you add a reference or briefly explain?
P19 L324: I wasn’t too familiar with the “Mid-Atlantic” region. So this leads to Northerly shore-parallel winds at the offshore lease area? How does that work in terms of stability and warm air advection? It feels like a whole different mechanism. It would be helpful to also see a schematic of this setup. Could it be added in figure 14 (as this figure now only uses half the width of a page)? In my opinion, the distinction between two different 'types' of events (or at least their synoptic configuration) is a very important and new feature of this paper, and adding this setup to figure 14 would highlight that point.
P21 L368: This study is based on 1 year of measurements. It would be valuable to repeat it with more data. Will this dataset be extended?