Thank-you for the revised submission. I will need to send the manuscript back to at least one of the original reviewers who recommended “major revision” (supported by many similar comments from the other referee and F. Nan) and asked to see it again.

I think you have responded well to the reviewers in Ocean Science Discussions but the revised manuscript should represent better what you say there. Any final version needs to be self-contained and not rely on the reader referring to Ocean Science Discussions. I do not mean that all the discussion there should be included, but there should be some reference (for example) to calculations for other years and locations for SCSMOC other than 1500m and 14N. Otherwise I think the reviewer(s) may be disappointed.

I am asking for revisions now so that you can consider these points and the following detailed comments before it goes back for re-review.

Introduction. Both reviewers and F. Nan commented on this. Usually I think the following sequence works: 1 motivation, 2 background, 3 “state-of-the-art” i.e. what previous work has achieved, 4 remaining gap(s), 5 how the present study aims to help, 6 specific objectives and structure. Therefore I think the present content needs re-arranging; referring to the present order
1 is paragraph 4 sentence 1 plus paragraph 1 sentence 2
2 is paragraph 1 (except sentence 2) plus paragraph 2 plus paragraph 3 except the last sentence
3 is paragraph 4 sentences 2 and 3
4 is paragraph 3 last sentence
5 and 6 are the rest of paragraph 4 - and follow my scheme!
There seems to be rather a lot of 2 relative to the other parts of the introduction.

Section 3
First sentence. This would be the place to mention that other depths and latitudes produce similar conclusions, and their validity for other seasons and years (albeit there is something about this later)

Paragraph 1 next-to-last sentence: better “. . the deep SCSMOC variability is at super-inertial frequencies (the period . .”. Again better “frequencies” not “periods” in the next sentence. [Sub-inertial and super-inertial refer to frequency (“sub” means “below”, “super” means “above”).]

Paragraph 3 first changed text. “. . stretched not in the meridional direction but in the vertical direction . .” In fact the cells have greater meridional extent than vertical extent so “stretched” must be relative to different horizontal and vertical scales which you should explain.
Two sentences later, should begin “Upwelling . .” (omit “The”).
Same paragraph, next-to last sentence, “in the depth between 500 to 4000m” is not clear. If you mean the cells each extend from 500 to 4000m then “each spanning 500m to 4000m”. If you mean there are several cells (alternately positive and negative) between 500m and 4000m depth, then “between 500m and 4000m depth”.
Same paragraph last sentence, omit “period corresponding to the”, better “frequencies” not “periods”.

Paragraph 4 sentence2. Better “. . propagates southwards from the region near Luzon Strait . .”

Section 4.
First sentence. Better “. . SCS, which is frequently affected by strong tropical cyclones originating . . Pacific (Zheng . .”
Paragraph 1 last sentence. Better “. . model output peak near the inertial frequency ..”

Paragraph 2 second sentence. Better “Near-inertial variability in the ocean is mainly caused by wind variability through a resonant response of ocean currents to wind (Gill, 1984).”
Same paragraph line 11. Define “TC” (also figure 8 caption; maybe define in first sentence of section 4).
Paragraph 2 here may also be the place to give the response to F. Nan’s comment about the relative importance of the wind and Kuroshio.

Dear Authors.
I have received reports on the revised manuscript from both reviewers, as a result of which I am asking for “technical corrections”. I will not see your paper again before publication, but it will be copy edited so please be sure that after that it still says what you want.
There is one reviewer comment; in the Introduction, first paragraph, please add your aim stated near the end of the Introduction “Whether high frequency . . is the main purpose of this study.” [I think you can keep this sentence where it is as well].
Here follow a few comments of my own as sent to you before (5th January e-mail) and on reading it again now. I now refer to the “clean” revised paper without line numbers.

Introduction
Paragraph 1, sentence 2. “Previous studies show that the South China Sea (SCS) . .”
Paragraph 2, first sentence. Omit “South China Sea” and “(“, “)”. [To define SCS when first used].

Equations (2) and (3). Usually Xw < Xe so I would expect the integration to be from Xw to Xe and not as written.

Section 3.
First sentence; better “. . from 1 January . .”
Same paragraph, 6th line from end. “sub-inertial frequencies” or “periods longer than inertial”.
Paragraph 3, 5th line from end. Here you mention the Pacific but there is nothing about near-inertial Pacific variability in the paper anywhere else so it is not clear what you refer to.

Discussion
Paragraph 1, sentence 4. “. . A mooring . .”. [I assume that this is the first reference to the mooring. At present with “The” it reads as though it was Yuan et al.’s mooring which is obviously impossible]
Last paragraph, 5th line from end. This is a bit vague – what are the two states? It would read better as “. . intrusion changes state (Nan et al. . .),” and better still if there were a short description of the different states.
Last paragraph, 3rd line from end. Better “in relation to” rather than “about the”?
Last paragraph, last line. “. . in a future study.”

Thank-you again for submitting your paper to Ocean Science.