General comments:

This is a generally well written study on very early observations of meteorological parameters at Nuuk, Greenland. I do not have any major objections against the publication of this manuscript, but the clarity of some sentences and phrases can be improved and some additional pieces of information be added to improve the manuscript. I ask the authors to consider the detailed comments listed below.

Specific comments:

Line 45: „though to present-day data” -> “through to present-day data” ?

Lines 50 – 53: this seems like an excessive citation of own papers?

Line 80: Please explain “ET”

Lines 81 – 84: Is it not clear, whether the given temperature, pressure and wind speed values are monthly and daily averaged values. I suggest to state this explicitly.

Line 117: “Measurements were taken using barometers with a scale in Paris inches and Paris lines.”

A brief definition or description of the Paris inch and Paris line would be good here.

Line 120: “A gravity correction”

Does this consider the latitude dependence of the gravitational acceleration or something else? Please mention briefly.

Lines 149 and following, and Table 1: It is unclear, what the difference between P max and P max abs is. Please explain in detail how the values were determined. Is P max the monthly mean of the maximum daily pressure values? This should be stated explicitly.

Line 187: It would be good to briefly describe, how the day-to-day variations were determined. Probably simply by taking the difference between daily max and min values?

Line 196: “there has been a lower frequency of the human sensation of changes in atmospheric pressure”

I’m not sure I understand this statement. How does one know that “human sensation” will be able to detect these relatively small differences?

Figure 4: It would be interesting to determine a FT or power spectrum of the historic time series. There seems to be a signature at 2-4 weeks or so?

Section 3.2.1: How uncertain are the inferred historical wind speeds in m/s?

Table 2: As with pressure in Table 1, the different max and min quantities should be precisely defined.

Line 235: “For both periods, the annual mean values are 6.1 m/s”

How meaningful is the finding that the historical and the modern wind speeds values agree well. Probably not very much. I suggest adding a corresponding disclaimer to the paper.

Figure 5: The SD is the one for the contemporary period, right? It would be good to show the one for the historic period as well.

Figure 6: Is SD for the contemporary period? Would be good to show both here as well.

Section 3.2.2: How is calm defined in the contemporary period?

Line 293: “during which, air temperatures”

Annual mean temperatures?

Line 298: “The highest temperatures were measured”

Annual mean temperatures?

Line 322: “The mean atmospheric pressure during the historical period was 1000.0 hPa.”

Is this because 1000.0 hPa was used as a reference in some way or is this a coincidence?

Figure 9: The pressure labels are a bit misleading, particularly 995 and 990 hPa. Please describe explicitly how to read them, i.e. what point/line of the plot they correspond to.

Line 364: “In the Arctic (defined as the area north of the 62nd parallel in the Northern Hemisphere)”

The Arctic is usually defined as the area north of the Arctic circle, i.e. 66.5 deg N.

Line 382: “while in the northern part these values are higher”

Higher than in the southern part or higher compared to other areas at this latitude?

Line 386: “The winter maximum was 10 hPa, and the summer minimum was 3.7–4.3 hPa”

Are these monthly averaged or seasonal averages?

Line 398: “whereas over the sea, winds flow parallel to the coast, blowing clockwise”

Parallel to the cost or clockwise? This is not 100% precise, please explain.

The following sentence partly contradicts the previous sentence. Please correct.

Line 405: “Putnins provides”

Year of publication missing.

Line 412: “Putnins (1970) also analysed wind direction for Greenland”

For which period of time?

Line 450: “A study by Putnins” -> “The study by Putnins”, because it has been mentioned several times already.

Line 457: “These data cover the period from August 1882 to August 1883”

Were these wind speeds "measured" in this period or also converted from a scale?

Line 483: “In the summer season, they”

Context not clear. "they" can correspond to "very strong changes" or to something else.

Same bullet point: it would be good to quantify "weak", "moderate" etc. here.

Line 486: ”The multi-year average monthly wind speed values in the historical and contemporary periods have similar values,”

This is probably not really a robust result, is it? I suggest stating this explicitly.

Line 499: “which is still possible TO BE INVESTIGATED”

The manuscript presents an interesting contribution that is clearly relevant to the readership of “Climate of the Past”. The topic is well aligned with the journal’s scope, and the study has the potential to provide valuable insights into historical climate variability. For these reasons, I would like to see this work eventually published in “Climate of the Past”. However, in its current form, the manuscript has several substantial shortcomings that preclude publication at this stage. These issues relate to (1) the insufficient description of the historical sources used, (2) the lack of essential metadata on the instruments and their installation, (3) an overly superficial discussion of the data‑conversion methodologies, and (4) significant problems concerning style, clarity, and overall presentation. I elaborate on these points below.

1. Description of Historical Sources

The information provided on the historical documentary materials is insufficient. The manuscript must include a complete and precise description of all primary sources, explicitly indicating whether they are printed or manuscript documents. Moreover, the exact archival locations (including repository names, call numbers, and shelf marks) must be stated. This level of detail is crucial both for reproducibility and to avoid duplication with previous research already conducted on the same materials. Without full transparency regarding the provenance and nature of the sources, it is difficult for readers to evaluate the robustness of the dataset.

2. Instrumentation and Installation Details

A clear understanding of the measurement setup is essential for interpreting the results presented in this study. Unfortunately, the manuscript provides insufficient information on the type of instruments used and the conditions under which the observations were taken. Details such as the model of the instruments, their exposure, installation height, and any known calibration procedures are necessary to assess data quality. For example, the 5.9 hPa offset reported between the historical and modern barometric measurements could plausibly arise from an unaccounted‑for error in the historical barometer’s installation height. Similarly, the methodology used to derive the wind‑force index is only briefly mentioned, yet it may be crucial for validating the resulting series and their comparability with modern observations. A substantial expansion of this section is needed.

3. Methodologies of Data Conversion

The procedures used to convert historical scales and units into modern equivalents are described only superficially. This topic warrants much more detail, including references to the relevant literature and established best practices. I strongly recommend that the authors incorporate additional citations to guide readers and to justify their methodological choices. Examples of particularly relevant sources include:

Lamb, H.H. (1986). Ancient units used by the pioneers of meteorological measurements. Weather 41, 230–233.

World Meteorological Organization (2024). Guidelines on Best Practices for Climate Data Rescue. WMO‑No. 1182, p. 49.

García‑Herrera, R. et al. (2003). CLIWOC Multilingual Meteorological Dictionary. EU contract EVK2‑CT‑2000‑00090. Alfred Wegener Institute, Bremerhaven.

A more explicit and transparent description of conversion procedures, unit transformations, corrections, and assumptions is necessary to ensure scientific soundness and reproducibility.

4. Style and Editing

In several parts, the manuscript reads more like a collection of notes than a cohesive scientific article. Explanations are often too brief, and many sentences (particularly in figure captions and other descriptive sections) are excessively short or even lack verbs. The text needs a thorough stylistic revision to ensure clarity, coherence, and consistency. The manuscript should be self‑contained, well structured, and homogeneous in tone and format. At present, significant work is required to meet the editorial standards expected by “Climate of the Past”.

Recommendation

In summary, while the study has promising scientific value and fits well within the journal’s scope, it requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication. Substantial improvements in the documentation of sources, description of instruments and metadata, methodological transparency, and overall writing quality are necessary. I therefore recommend major revisions.