Hello Kieran
I was waiting for the 2nd referee’s report which has much more to say. I apologise to being a little slow since that arrived, but have been travelling for much of the time.
I think the comments were worth waiting for and should help to improve the manuscript. Unfortunately from your point of view, the 2nd referee asks for “major revision” and wants to see the manuscript again. I will have to respect their request to see it again and therefore have labelled my decision “major revision”. However, I think that you should be able to do what is asked for and I am encouraging you to carry on. Here are my comments about the Referees’ comments.

Referee 1. I think you can easily accommodate this.

Referee 2. You have to remember that a final published paper will have these comments “alongside” so our credibility (yours and mine) depend on satisfactory responses to them.

The comment about omitting rotational effects seems to me the most serious. However, the sentences just before specific comment 1 seem to suggest a practical way for you to respond by discussing how far the waves may travel before rotational effects become important.

Almost all the specific comments 1 to 21 are matters of presentation which I think you can mostly deal with, without too much work and without new calculations. Specific comment 17 may be an exception but I can’t judge.

Yours sincerely
John Huthnance

Thank-you again for your re-revised version. The reviewer has now seen it and I attach their report. Please take these comments into account. Then (unlike the current version) I will look at your revised version - hopefully for the final time!
Yours sincerely
John Huthnance

Thank-you for this revised version. I think there are a few technical corrections, having said which my role is finished and publication will proceed via the Copernicus Editorial process. This includes copy-editing.

Page 3 line 2. Please introduce the abbreviation IWs here; it is used in line 12 (at least).

Page 4 line 16. ". . sloping and realistic . ."? Otherwise too many adjectives in one sequence.

Pages 5 and 7. Please included equation numbers in "( . . )"

Page 6 lines 14, 15. There is some repetition here of page 5 lines 3 and 18.