This manuscript deals with storm surge characteristics around the northern coast of Kyushu Island in Japan. The topic is interesting, and it should be published. However, the manuscript needs to be improved before publication.

Major points

• Section 2 is too short. It should be combined with the introduction.
• The description of the two assumptions in section 3.2 is incorrect. It should be updated correctly.
• The locations of the time series in Figures 1-4 are not easy to understand for non-East Asian readers. It should be indicated.
• The validation of historical runs needs to be improved. The author can compare the historical runs comparing with the altimeters.
• The author estimated a low probability of extreme wave heights, but the results do not match those of previous studies. For example, the extreme wave heights over 30-50-year return periods show particular typhoon tracks due to low probability. However, Figure 6 does not show such characteristics of extreme waves but has strange spotters-like noises. The author needs to clarify these characteristics.

Minor points

1. The notions of horizontal and vertical winds in section 3 should be reworded as longitudinal and latitudinal winds.

The originality of the study and its clear contribution to the literature are not presented in the article. The data used to achieve the objective of the study is not appropriate. How accurate is the calculation of the design waves of a region using climate change data? It is a question mark. Why such an approach is needed when there is historical climate data? Why climate change is not examined if climate change data is to be used? The introduction and literature presented in the study are far from the main objective. The coarse resolution climate data is converted to high resolution using CRNN, but no evidence is presented regarding the accuracy of the data produced. No detailed information about the method applied is given. It is doubtful that the data inserted into the GPD are independent storms.  

The objective of the study and the information given in the literature do not match. Why is it that extreme waves in the past 60 years are analyzed but future scenarios are mentioned?

Why is the analysis of extreme waves in the past period done with climate change data but not with past climate data?

Similar expressions appear in different sections. Repetitive expressions disrupt the flow.

Do you need table 1?

Why monthly average data was calculated? This part is out of the main scope.

Do the data in Figs. 1-4 represent an average of the data of the grid points of a region or a location in the respective regions? The boundaries of the regions should be shown on a map.

What was used as output for developing the model in CRNN?

Were all values ​​above the 95th percentile considered as extreme events? How were independent events sorted?