Thank-you again for your revised submission. I have now received referee comments (below, slightly edited). The status is now "accepted subject to minor revision". I should be very grateful to receive your "re-revised" manuscript taking account of these comments and my own comments that I e-mailed to you previously.


Comments on resubmission of ‘Continuous seiche in bays and harbors’ by Park et al. (Ocean Science)

I have read the resubmission of this paper, looking at the track change edits mostly, and I think the authors have made reasonable attempts to accommodate the comments by the reviewers.

Further comments are:

line 18 - is provided

22 - I would say near-continuous here

23 - seiche --> seiches

The authors should check throughout their use of the word seiche which is often used in the singular when I would have thought seiches plural would be better. If the singular is intended then I think that should be seiching.
e.g. line 49. Persistent seiches ... were, or Persistent seiching ..
There are quite a few of these.

24 - in the Shetland

125 - seiche --> seiching
but more important in this sentence is that 'period' could be taken in a quick read as the period of the seiche rather than the period of measurement. So I suggest rewording:
Continuous seiching throughout a 17.8 year period ..
and line 129 - these oscillations over an extended period of time ..

some references need doi's adding

Table 1 - you should use the standard tidal terms e.g. see the NOAA nomenclature on the web somewhere i.e.
MHW-MLW is called Mean Tidal Range (MTR) and not 'mean range' MN.
(MHHW+MLLW)/2 is called Diurnal Tide Level (DTL) so I guess MHHW-MLLW is called Diurnal Tidal Range (DTR).
There is no such thing as 'great diurnal range'.
Please add an extra column with the Tidal Form Factor for each site.

Let me go back to a couple of general things I mentioned last time:

- one is the claim to 'global' relevance of this study for which there is no evidence at all and for which the response of the authors was to say that it would have been too much time and effort to look for extra data. That was a disappointing reply.

This just boils down to wording, there is no harm in saying it is suggestive of global relevance without going over the top (e.g. line 133 is worded ok), but using only six locations, all with mixed-semidiurnal regimes, leaves a lot more to do if 'global' conclusions are to be made. I suggest the authors search through for their use of the word ‘global’ and consider if the wording is still justified.

- a second is that in my experience most charts show some kind of seiching at some time or other at the few cm to decimetre level. The authors responded ‘Surely the reviewer is not suggesting that in general high-frequency signals superimposed on the tide are seiche’. Well, yes I am, or at least I am in many cases.

The authors kindly pointed me to http://oia.dtic.mil/ a 1966 study for Monterey Bay by B.W. Wilson et al. Now, Wilson is a famous name in seiches (especially those of harbours) and reading his papers will show just how endemic they are (continuous or otherwise, to be much further studied).
The Wilson paper was mentioned to me as justification for the authors' speculation in several places in the present paper of lines in the temporal spectrum corresponding to particular spatial modes. I still find that unconvincing in the way it is worded as stating that correspondence as near fact rather than speculation. Invoking Wilson's several papers in fact makes the point I was trying to - that one needs some sort of decent 'model justification' (clearly rudimentary when Wilson worked at Cape Town in the 1950s but quite possible with modern modelling) for assigning temporal signals to spatial ones.

Thank-you for your re-revised version. I am sorry to be awkward but would still like some minor revision. The two main matters are
a) Your response to reviewer 1 about models. I don’t think numerical models are needed but I do think that the descriptions of modes, and the basis for identifying particular periods with particular mode forms, need to be clearer. There is a lot of terminology between which the distinctions are not clear. You refer (sometimes in reviewing others’ work) to bay modes, harbour modes, shelf modes, shelf-resonances, transverse mode, edge-waves. How are these all distinct and to which ones are λ/2, λ/4 and gα/(ω2-f2) relevant? [I don’t think there is any real difference between λ/4 and gα/(ω2-f2); only the form of cross-shelf depth profile assumed and whether f is taken into account.] I think some systematic introduction of terminology and description of forms would help to make this all clearer.

b) This probably related to my (the editor’s) confusion about what forms of oscillation are regarded as driving what other form. Another factor in this is the premature attribution to tidal forcing (in my opinion). There is a “progression” of expressions:
Lines 99-100 “. . long period shelf-resonances driven by tides might consititute a more general excitation . .” essentially as a hypothesis
Lines 148-9 “the tidally-forced shelf-resonances”
Lines 158-9 “the tidally-forced shelf-resonances”
Line 181 “with recognition of tidal energy as a driver of shelf-resonances”
Line 275 “shallow water tidal forcings”
Line 287 “tidally-forced shelf-modes are a plausible driver”
But I don’t see evidence justifying all this until section 5, line 288 and after. Even then there has to be a question of how tides force motion at frequencies which don’t seem to have any relation to tidal frequencies.
In relation to this, line 139 “These modulations are coherent with the tides” does not imply tidal forcing if the matter considered is (line 140) changing water depth etc. which occur during the semi-diurnal or diurnal tidal cycle. However, coherence with the spring-neap cycle does suggest tidal forcing. I think two separate ideas are being muddled here and should be separated.

Other detailed suggested re-wording and comments (some related to the above. C.f. Referee 1, I think “seiche” in the singular is OK if used as an adjective, e.g. “seiche amplitudes”).
Line 18. “. . A thorough review of seiches is provided . .”
Line 22. “. . continuous seiches extend . .
Line 23. “. . 28-minute seiches in”
Line 32. Not “sustainment” but “sustenance” or “sustainability”
Line 36. “. . identified permanent seiching . .”
Line 44. “. . amplitudes increase to 10 cm typically . .”
Line 65. “. . seiche period at Colombo . .”
Line 76. “greatest” not “highest”.
Line 88. “. . excitation of seiches, . .”
Line 89. “. . seiches are indeed present . .”
Line 90. Maybe “at least widely occurring” rather than “global”.
Line 102. “bays/harbours”
Lines 208-209. “shelf-modes appear to dominate the water level variance” – what is the basis for this statement? You don’t have data on the spatial form of oscillations.
Line 215. “Monterey Bay seiching . .”
Lines 218-220. What is the distinction between “transverse mode” and “shelf-resonance”? How long is “long period”? How is the 27.4 min mode to be considered as “a potential continuous forcing” if the forced oscillations are at a different frequency.
Line 267. “shelf edge-wave” – do you mean an edge wave along the coast?
Line 279. The M2 tidal period is 745 minutes. Harmonics of this have periods 745/n minutes ~ 373, 248, 186 . . minutes. Where do your periods 288, 199 minutes come from?
Line 290. You label figure 5 as “Shelf-mode power spectral density” but I suppose in fact it is the spectral density of the measured elevation at a single point. Likewise line 398 and maybe elsewhere.
Line 333. 35-50% (only) suggests that there is some other forcing as well.
Line 340. The hypothesis in lines 100-101 was expressed rather differently (“shelf-resonances” not “the shelf-mode”) and referred to tidal forcing.
Line 342. Are the “transverse and shelf-modes” really different?
Lines 362-374. There is the same question as for lines 220-221: how can a mode at one frequency (or period: 27.4 min) force oscillation at a different frequency. (This is not to doubt the energy argument but frequency match is another criterion).
Line 378. “seiches” (twice).
Line 380. “seiching”
Line 382. “seiches”

Thank-you for your latest version and your patience with the iterations. I am now asking just for a few "technical corrections" that you should consider; I need not see the paper again. My apologies that some of these could have been seen earlier.

Title (c.f. previous amendments) better "Continuous seiching in bays and harbors" (could be "seiches" if you prefer)
Line 23. "seiches"
Line 81. "seiches"; omit "a"
Line 82. "seiching"
Line 122. "seiching"
Lines 200-201. I am not sure about "In addition". I think "In addition . . . reinforcement" might be replaced by "Similarly"
Line 308. Something is missing, or maybe better "indicating likely independence between . ."
Lines 363-4 and 463-470. I don't mind where the latter go although they look to me more like "Discussion" than "Conclusions". But if not at line 364 then I think a "pointer" from line 364 to the later text would help so that the reader is not left in "suspense" at 364.
Line 382. Better ". . energy supplied in one period T to drive the resonance . ."

"harbour" or "harbour" - the copy editor will decide!