This manuscript presents a valuable and comprehensive dataset on turbulent water, heat, and CO₂ fluxes across the Tibetan Plateau, based on measurements from 16 eddy covariance stations. The authors highlight notable spatial heterogeneity in meteorological conditions and land-atmosphere exchange processes. Given the scarcity of long-term, ground-based observations in this region, the dataset is relevant and will be useful for model validation and understanding flux dynamics on the Plateau.

That said, there are several areas that could be improved to strengthen the manuscript:

While the REddyProc is referenced for flux partitioning, key methodological details are missing — particularly the u* threshold filtering, gap-filling strategy, and quality control protocols. These are essential for transparency and reproducibility.

Phrases like “significantly correlated” are used frequently, but without supporting statistical values (e.g., p-values, confidence intervals, or correlation coefficients). This weakens the interpretation of the results.

The manuscript classifies stations into "wet" and "dry," but it's unclear how this was defined. Some objective metric like aridity index, annual precipitation thresholds, or soil moisture levels would help readers understand the basis of this classification.

The discussion occasionally loses focus, with hydrology, meteorology, and carbon cycle topics mixed together without strong connections. Consider restructuring or summarizing the key takeaways more clearly.

There are a number of minor grammatical issues and typos throughout. I’ve flagged several below but recommend a full proofreading pass before submission.

Line-by-Line Comments

Title: The title suggests strong emphasis on temporal patterns, but the manuscript only presents seasonal analysis, there's little interannual variation discussed. You might consider rephrasing.

Line 43: Probably should be “located” rather than “locating.”

Line 52: Key worlds?

Line 56: Use “is pivotal” instead of “are pivotal,” since "interaction" is singular.

Lines 94–95: It’s not clear what these names refer to, consider clarifying.

Table 2 vs Line 408: Table 2 includes "EBC" — did you mean "EBR"? Also, line 408 references Table 1 for EBR, but the data appears in Table 2. Please check consistency.

Lines 123–125: Are these numbers from your own results? If so, clarify. If not, cite the sources.

Line 131: "CO₂ flux exchange" is redundant, consider "CO₂ flux".

Line 170: "Platrom"?

Line 231: “to analyzing” should be “to analyze.”

Line 254: When referencing “WPL correction,” please explain what WPL stands for (Webb-Pearman-Leuning)?.

Line 499 / Figure 6: Figure 6 only shows 12 stations, but the manuscript states 15 were used. Please clarify which stations were excluded and why.

Line 513: “carbon absorption primarily occur” → should be “occurs.”