Overall quality: The results of this survey-centred study are very interesting and are an important contribution to advancing our understanding of the roles of geoscience communicators.

Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC? The study’s objective is within the scope of GC.

Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data? The tools and concepts are well-established. The ideas and data are novel.

Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined? The methods and assumptions are valid and clear.

Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions? Yes

Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution? Overall, yes, there are a few sections that would benefit from some additional references.

Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper? Yes

Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary? Yes

Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? Yes

Is the language fluent and precise? Overall, yes, some minor language fixes will help with flow.

Are the number and quality of references appropriate? Quality is fine, but a few more references in particular sections will be beneficial.

Specific Comments:

Lines 8 – 9: “across diverse global contexts”, specifically the word diverse, makes me think that countries where communicators are from is a variable in your analysis. However, I believe this is opposite to your intent, since you emphasize a global understanding of communicators. Potentially rephrase?

Lines 25 – 26: Wondering if it’s worth mentioning if there is an accessibility element to what is discussed in this sentence? As in, since tv is more widely available in poorer nations (this is my assumption, would obviously have to back this up with a reference), maybe it’s a better way to spread climate change communication?

Lines 57 – 59: Similar to my first specific comment, the way this sentence is phrased, I assumed a point of the discussion would analyze these factors and their influence on communicators? After reading the discussion, I didn't see any discussion of your results in context of these factors. Is this something you can add - as in, did you analyze the results comparing countries (e.g. comparison of global south vs global north countries. If not, I don't think there is a point to adding this, unless you say that future studies could look at it from this perspective. Two sentences before this you say “universally effective communication strategies”, which I believe more accurately reflects your results and your discussion.

Lines 61 – 62: It is not clear to me what is meant by “indicators”, maybe change to “indicators of climate change”?

Line 66: The first paragraph of section 2 could benefit from supporting literature relating to my next comment.

Lines 67 – 68: Please note that your results are primarily quantitative, not qualitative, therefore there is a stronger quantitative component to your work.

Line 86: For the results section, with any of your open-ended questions, are there any quotes you can use from participants that speak to any of the topics discussed? If so, it is worth including them.

Line 87: Please include some additional details on the survey. For example, how many questions, average completion time, when were responses collected (date range), completion rate of the survey (how many people finished it), etc.

Line 95: This map needs a legend; are the dark colours simply noting a country where there was atleast 1 respondent? With that in mind, could be useful to show multiple categories (e.g. <10 respondents, 10 - 20, 20 - 30, >30)

Lines 99 – 101: In the survey, did you get people to respond to questions based on their television experience or their media experience - I'm imagining that their responses would change depending on what they're discussing. If you didn't, I think you'll need to reframe the paper/introduction to be more inclusive of non-television media platforms to make sure readers aren't solely interpreting your results through the lens of television climate change communication.

Line 105: In Figure 2, make sure text associated with “…” is not hidden.

Lines 108 – 109: Make sure the finding that “While 86.2%...” is discussed in the discussion. Specifically, 14% of respondents expressing uncertainty seems high. Could be worth mentioning some ideas as to why this number is high?

Line 123: Similar to my comment for lines 99 – 101, I think it may be useful to specify what is meant by the term “media”. Does this include television? If not, specify that somewhere.

Line 124: 72.9% seems quite high. Again, is this on television and/or other forms of media. Did you have a likert scale question on their levels of communicating climate change (e.g. never - on a daily basis)? Or an open-ended question to get a sense of their degree of reporting on climate change?

Lines 124 – 125: Was something along the lines of "organizational mandates" or "political alignment" included as response options for limitations? I would imagine that for tv stations they would often not let their meteorologists discuss climate change if they weren't a left-aligned station.

Line 139: I don’t see Table 1 referenced in the text. Make sure it is included.

Lines 141 – 142: Ensure that the claim “while not statistically representative” is correct. From my understanding, it all depends on how many variables you use and the specific statistical test. The only reason I mention this is that if another researcher wants to do some statistical tests with your data in the future, they could.

Lines 143 – 144: How does your data show the diversity and global relevance of perspectives? Include a sentence on this following or remove/rephrase.

Technical Corrections:

Lines 10 – 11: Move “despite their brevity” to the start of the sentence

Lines 17 – 18: Move “Television meteorologists….” In front of “by aligning international….”

Line 19: Remove “critical”

Line 22: add “primarily” in front of “driven”, and remove “in large part”

Lines 22 – 23: Reference

Lines 24 – 25: Reference

Lines 24 – 25: Remove “on an”, add “ly” to the end of international, remove “scale remains a top priority”

Lines 25 – 26: Reference

Lines 25 – 26: Remove “the media” from start of sentence, and include after “many countries,”.

Lines 28 – 29: Remove “seeks to”, add “s” after “explore”

Lines 30 – 31: Replace “a wide range of” with “various”

Lines 38 - 40: remove the dash between “con” and “dense”, remove “which can”, replace “undermine” with “undermining”, delete “communication”, replace “nuanced” with “nuances”.

Lines 42 – 43: add a comma after “climate change”, add comma after “reduction strategies”

Lines 50 – 51: add comma after “(Molina, 2005)”

Lines 57 – 59: Remove “there is”, remove “that”

Lines 60 – 61: Remove “seeks to”, add “es” to the end of “address”

Lines 61 – 62: Replace “the role of meteorologists as communicators” with “meteorologists’ perceived role as communicators”

Lines 63 – 65: Remove “effectively” from the end of the sentence, and include it before “complements”

Lines 76 – 78: Remove “From these organizations,”

Lines 84 – 85: replace “its objective is” with “it aims”

Lines 89 – 91: remove the dash between “con” and “tributors”

Line 95: “replays” doesn’t make sense here. Do you mean “replies”? “respondents”?

Line 106: capitalize “Climate Change”

Lines 108 – 109: remove the dash between “un” and “certainty”

Lines 112 – 113: Remove “d” at the end of “included”

Line 116: Replace “participants” with “participants’”

Lines 119 – 120: add a comma after (78%), and remove dash between “in” and “fluence”

Lines 121 – 122: remove dash between “in” and “formation”

Line 123: add “the” in front of “Media”

Line 133: Capitalize c in climate

Line 139: In Table 1, the title “Resources” doesn’t seem to make sense for the factors mentioned underneath. You may consider replacing “Channel” with “platform” or “avenue”. “Progress is already being made correctly” is awkward phrasing. Not sure what “New content in new media” means? Maybe just leave it as “new media”. Not clear what “every citizen speech” means. Potentially replace “The religious leaders’ sermon” with “religious leaders”. Remove “in Internet” from “Websites in Internet”. Remove “the” in front of “atmospheric pollution”. At the end of “Pollution of rivers and sea”, add a “s”. Consider replacing “The degree of social alarm” with “The degree of societal concern”. In the table caption, add an “’” to the end of “participants”.

Lines 141 – 142: Move “This survey” after “While not statistically representative,”

Lines 141 – 143: Add a dash between “on” and “air”

Line 146: Capitalize “c” in “climate” and “change”

Line 148: Remove dash between “inter” and “national”

Line 150 – 151: “to enable climate” doesn’t make sense. Do you mean “enable climate action”?

Line 151 – 152: Remove “Critical”

Line 152 – 153: Rephrase “local realities” – does not make sense.

Lines 157 – 158: Reference

Line 167: Remove dash between “in” and “creasing”

Lines 168 – 169: remove “serving”

Lines 172 – 173: Rephrase “daily life climates”

Lines 175 – 176: Is there a reference for this? If so, include. If this is a result of your study, clarify this.

Lines 178 – 179: replace “play a” with “are”. Delete “role”

Lines 179 – 181: delete “the state of”. Either add “e.g.,” in front of Schafer, or add a second reference

Lines 184 – 185: Replace “posed by” with “of”, delete the “’” after “stakeholders”