Dear Dr Dieterich and colleagues,

Thank-you for your response to the reviewers' comments. I think you have
addressed most of them (a couple of specific points below). However there
is still more that could be done to improve the readability of the paper,
that both reviewers mentioned. There are a great deal of similar figures,
covering the various experiments. This makes it somewhat repetitive. Can
your readers easily see which variations made the most difference? What's
the at-a-glance take-home message?

One way would be to produce one or two summary figures, with all the
information in figures 2-8. Obviously it would need reformatting, but if
you avoid the bar charts this is not difficult. For example assigning
coloured markers to each different experiments you could plot several bars
in one column. The existing figures need not be wasted - if you kept them
as supplementary information they'd be available for readers who want to
read off specific points in detail. Another approach would be to replace the
multi-panel figures with a single panel for each inter-comparison.

Another area in which you could save repetition and help the reader would
be by merging sections 2 and 4, so that descriptions of each experiment
next to the results. If you do prefer to keep them separate, then use the
subheadings in section 2 as for section 4.

Other specific points that still need addressing:
The placenames in figure 1 - and later figures - are still difficult to
read. I suspect this is an issue with font embedding - can you try and
resolve it with the technical publication team please. Maybe try another
font (check the OS website for advice) and also increase the fontsize.

Please provide a URL (and preferably DOI) for Sodling and Nerheim. Also,
I'm not sure how that work (I found it in Swedish) handles the tide, which
is not completely insignificant on the west coast. Does this contribute to
the discrepancy you refer to at the end of section 3? Are tides in the
Skagerrak included in the extreme levels for warning purposes?

section 4: "uncertainty generated by different RCMs" - in what sense?
rephrase?

Figure 8: The warning level 1 line is obscured by the bars at some
stations.

Regards,
Joanne Williams (editor).

Dear authors,

thank-you for your recent response, and the reformatting to tidy up sections 2& 4. I understand that you prefer to keep the majority of figures in full, and this is somewhat an aesthetic choice I am happy to leave it to your judgement.

A couple of typos I noticed :
p6 line 10: should be "its"
p24 line 30: "within within".

The fonts on the maps are better, thank-you, especially in print, and although somewhat pixellated are now legible on two different systems. Why they don't scale quite right on either of mine but work on yours, I have no idea. But it's legible!

So please go forward to the next stage of publication.

Regards,
Joanne Williams