Summary:

The authors present a 21 year climatology of sea-effect snowfall events over the Baltic Sea using the HCLIM model.  I think the paper is clearly written, the method is tested and shown to work well for the intended purpose, and limitations are discussed.  I only have two minor substantive comments and spotted a couple of typos/grammar errors.  I recommend publication after minor revisions.

Substantive comments:

1. Could you add some discussion about different potential methods to detect snowbands (e.g., using model reflectivity or satellite data), and why you chose your more indirect method.  Are direct methods too complex and hence error-prone (maybe involving pattern recognition etc.)?

2. I didn't understand why Fig. 9 was divided into subregions--what is the purpose of introducing these regions?

Typos/grammar: 

Line 7: Add "the" before majority

Line 67: The previously made  studies --> Previous studies



Line 124: "... criteria of OLS2022 were adopted from OLS2022" sounds a little redundant.

Line 136 (and elsewhere): From hereon --> Hereafter 

Line 276: into --> of

Line 188: Could add a short one-sentence subsection summary?

Line 200: Doesn't Fig. 1 include southern Finland?

Line 245: Is the most snowfall related to the orientation of the coast relative to the winds, or to the fetch?

Line 264: Detected *snowband* days?

Line 304: Add "the" before majority

Line 306: Above mentioned

Line 334, 371: use --> utility of HCLIM

Line 375: seek for --> seek to identify?

Line 381: Maybe use the plural (uncertainties)?  Also, I wasn't sure what you were trying to say.  Do you mean temporal variability with period on the order of 20 years?  Natural variability by itself does not render climatologies inaccurate (no?).

Line 389: I'm not sure if the last paragraph/advertisement is needed (but will leave it up to you).

see attached PDF.