This study develops China’s annual forest age dataset (CAFA V2.0) at a 30-meter resolution from 1986 to 2022 by integrating the modified mCOLD algorithm and machine learning models. The generated dataset shows  improvements over previous products, and is valuable for ecological and climate studies. However, further clarification on data preprocessing,  validation, and uncertainty quantification is needed. 

1.    The introduction should further emphasize the significance of time-series forest age data, particularly in the context of forest ecosystem dynamics, carbon cycle modeling, and long-term forest management, to highlight the necessity and scientific value of this study.

2.    The source and spatiotemporal resolution of forest type data in Figure 1 need to be clarified. Please specify how this data was obtained and its respective temporal and spatial resolutions.

3.    The preprocessing steps of Landsat data (such as cloud and shadow removal) should be described in more detail to improve transparency and reproducibility.

4.    While the NDVI formula is well known, the calculation method for NIRv is not explicitly provided. It is recommended to include the formulas for both indices to facilitate a better understanding of their computation.

5.    What are the plot sizes for the two types of sample datasets? Are they consistent? If not, could this discrepancy impact the accuracy or consistency of the forest age estimation? A discussion on this issue would be beneficial.

6.    How was the quality of the forest disturbance samples ensured? Was independent validation performed? Providing relevant validation methods would enhance the credibility of the sample data.

7.    The Liu and Potapov forest height products have differences in forest extent and definitions. How did the authors address this inconsistency? Additionally, it was mentioned that 0.32% of pixels lacked forest height values—what dataset was used as the baseline for defining forest areas in this case?

8.    Has the synthesized forest type distribution dataset undergone independent validation? Furthermore, is the definition and extent of forests in this dataset consistent with the CLCD dataset used in the study? Further clarification is needed.

9.    Did the authors obtain a time-series forest height dataset for undisturbed areas? 

10.    Are the parameters of the random forest algorithm consistent across models? Were hyperparameter optimizations conducted? Detailed information on parameter selection and tuning methods should be provided. Additionally, what tools were used for data processing? More technical details would improve reproducibility.

11.    How was uncertainty evaluated? The paper does not mention relevant methods. It is recommended to include a quantitative analysis of uncertainty in forest age estimation.

12.    It is suggested to increase the number of panels in Figure 5 to present more time-series forest age data and provide a more detailed analysis of its temporal dynamics to enhance the scientific value of the dataset.

13.    Which year does the validation result in Figure 6 correspond to? Please specify this to ensure a clear understanding of the temporal relevance of the validation.

14.    The paper lacks a quantitative assessment and discussion of data uncertainty. It is suggested to incorporate uncertainty evaluation in the results or discussion sections to improve the study's completeness.

Updating the forest age map to annual scale is very important for understanding forest dynamics, particularly in China, where phenomenon plantation projects have been implemented for decades. This manuscript demonstrate a very good study on how to extend the forest age map from a recent year to every year for the past decades. The presentation of the study needs some improvement, here are some suggestions:

1. How was the forest height estimated for years without GEDI footprints? Please explain clearly. 

2. Fig 6 and others:what does the circle size indicate?

3. Fig 11: Add a validation figure for the result from this study as comparison. 

4. Fig 13:Please also add a figure show the distribution of forest height and age samples over different years.

5. Please also add a comparison between forest age map for planted forest and natural forest.