Interesting product, perhaps unique for freshwater lakes. Thank you for using ESSD.

Reader needs to see a much better, more explicit uncertainty analysis. What authors call 'data consistency evaluation' (Section 5) provides good validation, but users should also find detailed informed discussion of uncertainties: instrument uncertainties, performance / deployment uncertainties, environmental (weather, water height) uncertainties, etc. Authors mention many sources of uncertainty (sensor performance, for example) throughout the manuscript but never pull those uncertainties together into a composite uncertainty budget. Figure 3 shows high R2 values for radiation intercomparison, good. Figure 5 shows uncertainty bars but only for the WMO reference stations. Pull this information together into a table of estimated uncertainty by parameter measured, with a short section of author explanations and comments? Data as presented seem to lack any uncertainty, which authors and users will recognize as not plausible.

Thank you for attention and response to most recent comments.