EMB-175 First Officer reported flight deck windshield cracked and bubbles formed and resulting in a diversion to a nearby suitable airport.

Narrative

As we were operating; ZZZ1 to ZZZ2; the CA (PM) and I (PF) noticed a high pitch noise coming from the cockpit; which increased as the aircraft continued climbing thru FL250. Associated to the noise; we also noticed a bubble forming on the upper right hand corner of the FO's windshield; becoming bigger as we approached FL310 to FL350. The Captain and I monitored the bubble until approximately estimating its dimension to be around 2 inches tall and 12 inches wide; alongside the upper; right portion of the windshield. At this point we conveyed to address and troubleshoot the issue; as the CA asked to interrupt the climbing and descend to a lower altitude. I descent to FL300; before the CA sent a message via ACARS for further assistance and possible diversions airports. This action was followed by consulting the QRH procedure 'WINDSHIELD; CRACKED OR IMPAIRED'. As the CA requests for lower speed; per QRH; the ATC asked us the number of souls on board and fuel remaining; after which he [advised ATC] on behalf of the crew. ATC was previously informed of the nature of our altitude and speed requested. While we were going through the troubleshooting procedures; we noticed what it seemed to be cracks on multiple panels on the right windshield; which prompted the captain to ask to continue our descend to a much lower altitude. We descended approximately to 11000 ft; in order to minimize the pressure applied on the windshield. As we contacted the next sector. Dispatch gave us a series of possible diversions; and we chose ZZZ as the most fit airport to divert to. The idea behind this choice was made because of the level of infrastructures on the field and the possible options that the passengers would have had to reach their final destination; if we wouldn't have been able to continue on our own. Per QRH we ultimately descend to 10000 and 220 kts. FA (flight attendant) and passenger were informed throughout the descent and ultimately informed of the intention to divert to ZZZ. The FOM and AOM arrival procedures were followed without exceeding any limitations at this point; and the captain conveyed not to proceed on completing the QRH windshield cracked or impaired checklist since the lower altitude; the vicinity of the airport; and because the differential pressure did not pose any threat to the bubble/crack in question; that in the meantime ceased to expand further.Packs were kept on and we chose not to dump the pressurization for passenger comfort and minimize the distraction of the crew. Another problem we endured at this point was overweight landing. Despite accepting delayed vectors; we were planning to land around 78000lb gross weight. We proceeded to brief the overweight landing checklist per QRH and FOM; before the CA instructed me to perform the arrival and landing into ZZZ. The touchdown was smooth and within the 300 FPM limit outlined in the QRH and FOM. After a successful landing we taxied out the runway and we met with ARFF(airport fire and rescue); where they proceeded to inspect the airplane and brakes for damages or fire. No issues were relayed to us. After contacting operation and talked with dispatch and maintenance control; we proceeded to the gate assigned; where passengers were deplaned and successfully booked to a later flight. Maintenance; subsequently; performed a pressurization test per maintenance control; which it passed and the crew flew the plane back to Dallas with no additional issues.Based on the report we received from maintenance personnel at ZZZ; it seems like there were signs of improper installations or not appropriate time applied before the sealant could properly set on the above cited windshield. Therefore the presence of numerous bubbles. The Captain and I; however; we were not aware of the extension of the damages; when we noticed the bubble progressing that fast; nor the cause of this sudden change in dimensions. We both made the most conservative choice; in the interest of safety; and performed a precautionary landing with an unscheduled diversion to ZZZ; as the most fit airport for the kind of emergency we were dealing with. I do believe that both our decisions were made for the best interest of safety; as well as trying to accommodate the passengers upon landing in the best way we could. We could have been; however; both me and the Captain; more knowledgeable on the construction of the windshield; as well as the amount of damages that could be withstand under certain phase of flying. The lack of immediate and visual communications; I think; between us and maintenance control; played a central role in assisting me and the Captain in what would probably be a different outcome if we were able to send pictures to the personnel on the ground . This; of course; was due to the lack of WiFi in the flight deck; in that specific aircraft.