The manuscript proposes a combined one-dimensional spectrum of ocean surface waves, with wavelengths ranging from swell to wind wave scales, to improve measurement predictions compared to existing models. The model is built using SWIM satellite measurements as input data, and validation is performed using buoy data and a separate set of SWIM measurements. Some parameters and comparison results should be revised.

1. Page 5, lines 115 through 125: The authors compare G spectrum and E spectrum predictions of SWIM measurements and define specific wavenumber intervals where each estimation is in agreement with the observed data. Additional to that information, a visual inspection of the predictions against measurements would be helpful. While the method section describes the SWIM dataset (lines 185 - 200), it is unclear how the wavenumbers ranging from 31 m to 209 m were resolved. Providing a time series of SWIM measurements, along with sampling rate and Nyquist wavenumber and frequency, would clarify the analysis. Note that in the section 3.1.2 (line 205), the SWIM measurement range is stated as 0.01–0.2 rad/m⁻¹, but this comes much after than the initial description of the SWIM dataset.
2. Equation 20: It can be either written as H_1/3 or H_s, it is redundant to use both.
3. Equation 23 and 24: The coefficient fit formulas do not match with their corresponding graphs on Figure 2; are those reversed?
4. Line 234: Wave steepness range should be 0.0115, not 0.015.
5. Line 249: The variable should be denoted as k_p, not kp.
6. Line 252: What is the exact definition of a height spectrum? Is it wave height spectrum or wave elevation spectrum which is H/2?
7. Line 256 with relation to the Figure 4: It is written that “the trend of change is almost identical to the G spectrum, with the spectral peak in the C spectrum slightly smaller than that in the G spectrum” but the G spectrum results are not demonstrated.
8. The Figure 4 caption describes spectrum results at different significant wave heights, while the figure legends display wave steepness values and wave age. Although wave steepness is directly related to wave height, the caption and legend should use the same parameter for clarity. Additionally, since wave age remains constant throughout Figure 4, it does not need repetition in each legend entry.
9. Figure 5: The previous comment applies to this figure as well. Both wave age and wave steepness change here due to variations in peak wavenumber, not wind speed. For clarity, the legend should show only the varying parameter (peak wavenumber or wave steepness) rather than listing all dependent variables such as wave age.
10. Figure 6: The only varying parameter is wind speed yet the legend does not indicate any wind speed variation. Unlike Figure 5, where wave ages vary due to peak wavenumber changes, here they vary due to wind speed changes. The figure should clearly indicate which parameter is being varied.
11. Figure 8a: It is hard to see the probability density variations. the colorbar for all plots of figure 8 should be in similar range so that we can better see the comparison.
12. The headings of Table 1: “The C spectrum better than the G/E spectrum” is unclear. What does DI and R values for C spectrum better than E spectrum mean?
13. Table 2: The previous comment applies to this table as well.
14. Figure 11: Height spectra (Elevation spectra?) y label units are missing. Is it normalized?

Publisher’s note: this comment was edited on 6 May 2025. The following text is not identical to the original comment, but the adjustments were minor without effect on the scientific meaning.

This is a very interesting work with results showing the benefit of using directional wave spectra from wave scatterometer SWIM of CFOSAT. The paper focuses on the development of a parametric wave spectrum that includes an enhancement parameter depending on sea state conditions such as wave steepness, wave age, and wind. The use of L2 SWIM spectra allows for the adaptation and calibration of this enhancement parameter. Validation of the established combined spectrum, in comparison with other parametric wave spectra (Goda and El-fouhaily) and NDBC buoys and SWIM observations, demonstrates more consistency with observations from C spectrum and opens very interesting perspective of using the combined spectrum for remote sensing applications. The analysis is well detailed, taking into account the variability of parameters describing sea state. I would recommend to authors to outline in the conclusions  a room of improvement related to using wind speed from observations instead of model’s one, which include uncertainties in some key ocean regions.

The paper is well-written, and the sections are clearly defined. Below are some comments to improve reading the text and also points to clarify :

figure 4 a, b and c are not indicated on figures, you can just mention left, middle and right

figure 7 & 8 : more comprehensive title, for instance validation of R^2 and DI from C and G spectra.

Line 330 : there is a typo on this line “better than G spectrum” I guess.

Figure 9 & 10 : same remarks as for figure 7 and 8, you can remove the “this is the comparison”, put just the title.

Line 420 : rephrasing “higher proportion superiority”