Dear Authors
Please see below 1) the report from the reviewer on your revised version (in case you have not received this directly) and 2) my own editorial comments that I sent you before (for your convenience). The reviewer now has a better opinion of the science in your manuscript. However, they are still asking for “major” revisions and to see the manuscript again after revision. In any case, when it is published the reviewer comments will be public. So please do take them into account in your (second) revision.

1) Review on “Impact of basin dynamics on the regional sea level trends in the
Black Sea” by Kubryakov et al.

This manuscript deals with the relationship between wind curl and circulation in the Black Sea. The successful reconstruction of circulation from the wind without using numerical model is the basic message. As the authors state, the underlying relationships have been known from earlier studies, however they give a good illustration. The idea of the paper is understandable. However, as presented, it needs a major revision.

Here are some comments.
For the role of the Ekman pumping and its relationship with the distribution of mass, authors could consult also the work of Stanev et al. (2004).

p. 2, line 20-23. There is text-repetition.

I wonder whether the right title of section 3.1 should be “Sea level trends”. What authors describe is the sea level variability with interannual time-scales over-imposed on the global trend.

The same comment applies to the title of paper” Impact of basin dynamics on the regional sea level trends in the Black Sea”. What authors show, is that the long-term changes of sea level are characterized by certain spatial variations. And that these spatial patterns are reminiscent of, or related to, some circulation patterns. However, when reading the title one could expect to learn how (quantification of mechanisms) the basin dynamics modulate the sea level change.

P. 7, line 20. Authors could mention that this time lag was estimates by Stanev et al. (2000) as 1-2 months that is they demonstrate a good consistence with previous research in this field based on longer record.

P. 8, caption Figure 6. Perhaps better normalize the wind curl by f.

P. 9. There is a double use of “6” in Fig. numbers.

P. 9. Avoid repeating Fig. 1 in Fig. 6a-horizontal pattern.

P. 9, line 10. The trends in Fig. 6 (b, c, d) are small-scale and patchy. An estimate of their confidence needs to be provided. These figs are not sufficiently considered/explained in the text. Their patchiness makes me think that there is a problem with statistics. Perhaps the whole section “3.3. The impact of mesoscale variability on the sea level trends” can be omitted. Actually, the title of this section is too promising. We see small scale patterns (or noise) but the explanation of how the mesoscale variability impacts the sea level trends is missing (not presented in a convincing quantitative way).

References:
E.V. Stanev, J. Staneva, J.L. Bullister, J.W. Murray, (2004), Ventilation of the Black Sea pycnocline. Parameterization of convection, numerical simulations and validations against observed chlorofluorocarbon data, Deep-Sea Research I, 51, 2137–2169


2) Editorial comments
Page 1
Lines 15, 16. I prefer “rise”, “fall” (or perhaps “lowering”) of sea level, not “increase”, “decrease”.
There are many later places in the text where this also applies, e.g. page 2 line 1, page 3 line 39 (“falling”), page 12 line 8 (“rising”), page 12 Line 11 (“a rise”), page 12 line 12.

Line 32. Better “. . Black Sea MSL then rose at a faster rate . .”

Page 2

Line 14. “reduces” -> “decreases”

Line 19. “sea level is rising . .”

Lines 20-22. This sentence is a duplicate.

Line 28 and many other places including notation on figures. I prefer “metre” (European spelling) since Napoleon defined it and to avoid ambiguity with a measuring instrument. Also page 3 line 20, figure 2c and its caption, figure 3 caption

Page 3

Line 11. “derived”. How? Especially, how do you go from a current vector everywhere to one value which you compare with wind curl.

Line 18. You need “:” after first “MSL”

Lines 29-30. Better “it rose again”

Line 37. “southeastern”

Page 4
Line 3 (3rd of figure caption). “2017” -> “2007”.

Page 5
Line 1. “DSL falls in the centre . .”

Page 6

Figure 3 caption line 3. “isobaths” (spelling).

Lines 5-6. “including most of the north-west shelf”? (Something is missing)

Line 7. Delete “,” after “least”.

Line 18. “mean speed of surface geostrophic currents” c.f. comment on page 3 line 11; how is this derived?

Line 19. “rising” -> “increasing” (refers to current speed). “0.5” -> “0.05”. “per year”.

Page 7
Lines 7-8. Figure 2c (caption) refers to “basin’s periphery”. Please explain “averaged over the shallow areas” which needs to be something different to find “close agreement”.

Page 8.

Figure 5 caption line 4. Needs completion.

Line 12. This is not the definition of DSL in section 2.

Line 13. “. . while the total Black-Sea-average sea level (S) trend . .”

Page 9
Figure 6b, colour scale needs units.

Page 10
Line 3 and figure 7a. Text and figure disagree. I think the figure is not % but simply fraction of time. C.f. figure 6b.

Page 12

Figure 9 line 3 (caption line 1). “. . DSL at 33.2°E, 44.7°N reconstructed . .”

Line 10. “southeastern”

Line 14. “southeastern”

Dear Authors
The referee has agreed to publication. The following are my comments which I e-mailed to you on 17th March
Page and line numbers refer to your latest version.
Page 1 line 17. “southeastern”? (as elsewhere)
Page 2 line 15. “. . Kubryakova and Korotaev . .”
Page 3 line 14. “u” and “v” need subscripts “g” as in line 12.
Section 3.1. Page 3 line 34 to page 4 line 2. The overall rate 3.15 mm/year is much less than the combination 26.2 mm/year in 1993-1999 plus -3.0 mm/year in 2000-2007 plus 10.0 mm/year in 2007-2014. There are two reasons for this inconsistency. Firstly, in figure 1b you have a discontinuity in the trend lines between the first two periods. I think this is not acceptable. Secondly, the overall linear trend starts and finishes at different levels from the 3-part fit. This is an inevitable result of a linear trend when the variation is not linear. It seems to me that you need to decide what is really the message of this paragraph and to give consistent trends accordingly.
Page 4 line 1. 1993-1999?

Page 6
Lines 10-11. “. . including the large north-west shelf area. . .”?
Lines 11-12 and page 7 lines 2-3. These sentences should be merged with page 5 lines 3-5, they are all about the same thing.
Line 23. Please define “. . mean . . in the basin . .” Do you mean a spatial average of speed (velocity magnitude)? Over the whole area of the Black Sea or the deep part (how deep)?
Line 24. Better “increasing” not “rising”.

Page 7.
Figure 4 caption. “basin-averaged” – same question: over the whole area of the Black Sea or the deep part?
Lines 14, 15. “amplitude” is not the same as “range”. Range = max – min. Amplitude = max – mean or mean – min. I think you mean “range” in line 14 but you need to check Goryachkin and Ivanov (2006) for line 15.

Page 8
Figure 5 caption. Better “. . 33.2°E, 44.8°N . . 35.4°E, 44.0°N . .”
Lines 13-14. “. . DSL = SLA-MSL

Page 9
Line 6. Page 10 line 3 and figure 8 refer to 38.5°E, 42°N.
Line 8. “. . Kubryakov and Stanichny . .”
Lines 16-17. This sentence repeats page 9 lines 6-7.
Lines 18-19. Better “. . Positive trends of eddy radius . .”?

Page 10
Line 1. Please explain (why the) “Anticyclonic Batumi eddy induces convergent motions”
Line 9. Better “. . 31.5°E, 44°N . .”
Figure 8 caption. Better “. . 38.5°E, 42°N . . from . .”

Thank-you for your amendments. I am now asking just for a few “Technical Corrections” for clarity and consistency. Page and line numbers refer to the latest manuscript.

Page 3 line 36 to page 4 line 2. These sentences duplicate the previous two lines – delete.
Page 4 lines 3-4. “1993-1999”, “. . (Fig. 1a). Similar sea level changes during . .”
Page 4 line 4. “. . (Fig. 1b) . .”

Page 6 line 5. “. . over the basin (i.e. the whole Black Sea) and DSL . .” [to clarify what you mean by “basin”]
Page 6 line 15. Omit “the rise of”

Page 7 line 19. “ranges” not “amplitudes”

Page 9 line 4. Not “1-15”. In the figure values are between about -1.5 and +1.5 (if you include Baltami anticyclone as “interior”).
Page 9 line 9-10. “. . (Fig. 7a). The largest DSL trend . .”
Page 9 lines 11-12. “Kubryakov and Stanichny”
Figure 7. Units for panel b are “/year”. Units for panels c, d need “/year” adding. Either the units or the caption have panels c and d reversed. m/s relates to orbital velocity, km to radius.

Page 10 line 1. Better “. . position of rising DSL (Fig. 7b). . .”
Page 10 lines 4-5. I think this should be “. . basin. In an intensifying anticyclonic eddy sea level rises in association with convergent motions and accumulation of the surface waters in its core (see e.g. Siegel et al., 1999) . .” [Intensifying is necessary for the convergent motion etc.]

Page 12 line 21. “DSL” not “DLS”.