Dear authors, thank you for your revised manuscript. I'm happy to accept your paper for publication after the following corrections in the text:

Line 11: Change "WWIII" to "Wave Watch III"
Line 97-98: ... Liu et al., 2016) strong winds and high waves are observed ...
Line 191: The wave model quality was assessed ...
Line 192: A comparison of the modeled and measured SWH by satellite is ...
Line 193-195: The model results metrics are 0.88 for the correlation coefficient (R), a bias of -0.04 m, a RMSE of 0.53 m, and a Scatter Index of 0.28. The results of the model quality assessments based on the satellite data is of the same quality as previous studies (Li et al., 2019, Stopa et al., 2016).
Line 329: ... rare and a detailed analysis is out of the scope of this paper.
Line 419: Calculations are made with reanalysis (a-c) and observation data (d-f)
Line 459: are shown
Line 517: is largely due to storms.
Line 650-651: However, we cannot recommend any particular parametrization due to the lack of in-situ observations in the situations when the heat flux differences between parametrizations are large.