The authors need to consider the reviewer 1 comments and questions.

I apologize for the time taken to deliberate on this manuscript. I have thoroughly read the manuscript and decided to rejected the manuscript for publication in Ocean Sciences.

The reviewers of the manuscript raised concerns about the paper particularly with respect with the presentation of the study methods, results and conclusions. I agree with these concerns.

While the authors explain the reasoning behind choice of the two different study regions and two different techniques, there it is still confusion on how the analysis of the Gothenburg Harbour and Bornholm shipping channel are combined to support the findings of the study. Ultimately these two study areas are independent and disconnected from each other.

The numerous classifications of the data create confusion. For example, the ADCP analysis is divided into “wake”, “double”, “close wake”, “no wake”, and “0-3 ship widths”, “3-6 ship widths”, and “6-55 ship widths”. It is unclear why these 6 classifications were used when in the results sections they appear interchangeable i.e., close wake == 0-3 ship widths. Table 3 also has the category of “single” and “all” in addition to “close” and “double”. Finally, the statement “Due to the low detection rate in the two larger distance categories, on the close wake category will be used in graphical presentation … (line 351)” suggests that it is only the close wake data that has relevance to supporting the finding of the study.

The supporting figure and table could be improved. For example, Figure 4 caption identifies “ships visible as warmer yellow dots”, these are very hard to find. For easy of identification, it would have been appropriate to draw a box around these features. X-axis of figures 6,7 and 8 could have been given as F (x107 kg m/s2).

The sections 3.3 and 3.4 could be more concisely written. The conclusion of ship wake impact on the large-scale marine environment is not strongly supported given the local impact of ship wake from both in in-situ (ADCP) and satellite SST study.

For these combined reasons the manuscript is not acceptable for publication in its current format.

Dear Authors
As I think you know, I have taken over the handling of your manuscript from the previous editor. However, I am not over-riding her judgement. Therefore I am asking for major revision to take into account her "Editor Comments" as given below. There is also a comment from one reviewer about the use of English, also given below. Any final manuscript will be copy-edited for use of English, however, your intended meaning needs to be clear before that.
Yours sincerely
John Huthnance


Editor comments
"The reviewers of the manuscript raised concerns about the paper particularly with respect with the presentation of the study methods, results and conclusions. I agree with these concerns.

While the authors explain the reasoning behind choice of the two different study regions and two different techniques, there it is still confusion on how the analysis of the Gothenburg Harbour and Bornholm shipping channel are combined to support the findings of the study. Ultimately these two study areas are independent and disconnected from each other.

The numerous classifications of the data create confusion. For example, the ADCP analysis is divided into “wake”, “double”, “close wake”, “no wake”, and “0-3 ship widths”, “3-6 ship widths”, and “6-55 ship widths”. It is unclear why these 6 classifications were used when in the results sections they appear interchangeable i.e., close wake == 0-3 ship widths. Table 3 also has the category of “single” and “all” in addition to “close” and “double”. Finally, the statement “Due to the low detection rate in the two larger distance categories, on the close wake category will be used in graphical presentation … (line 351)” suggests that it is only the close wake data that has relevance to supporting the finding of the study.

The supporting figure and table could be improved. For example, Figure 4 caption identifies “ships visible as warmer yellow dots”, these are very hard to find. For easy of identification, it would have been appropriate to draw a box around these features. X-axis of figures 6,7 and 8 could have been given as F (x107 kg m/s2).

The sections 3.3 and 3.4 could be more concisely written. The conclusion of ship wake impact on the large-scale marine environment is not strongly supported given the local impact of ship wake from both in in-situ (ADCP) and satellite SST study.

For these combined reasons the manuscript is not acceptable for publication in its current format."

Reviewer comment
"The grammar needs to be improved, as use of the word "it" without an antecedent noun is difficult for a native English speaker to parse. In many other languages, such a vague word is not an issue. In English conversational speaking the word "it" pops up and is understood in context. However, in writing, there are no gestures or social cues as to what this word "it" is referring to."

Dear Authors
Thank-you for your revised manuscript, which I think has done much to address the points of concern. I am now asking for minor revision, mainly in respect of the following comment, and some detailed changes relating to the line-numbered points below.

I think you might do a little more to address the previous editor’s point about integrating the two approaches, and at the same time substantiate “. . turbulent wakes are of a scale relevant to consider when assessing environmental impact from shipping.” (end of “Conclusions”). For this, might you integrate a mean ADCP-based ε intensity, duration and vertical extent over a wake width and length corresponding to duration? [Care would be needed regarding width; the thermal wake may be wider than the enhanced-ε wake owing to the relaxation and spreading referred to in line 417.] Such a calculation (relative to ship forcing) might quantify an “amount” of ε related to an “amount” of ship forcing to compare with typical oceanic values of ε. I know this is vague; you are better placed to judge how this might best be done. However, I emphasise ε as the fundamental quantity which those concerned about ocean mixing attempt to measure.

Yours sincerely
John Huthnance (Editor)

Abstract
Line 12. “in” –> “is”
Line 23. “effected” (meaning “caused”) or “affected” (meaning “influenced” or “changed”)? According to lines 121-122, “affected”.

Section 2
Line 114. ADCP and “extent” – is this just vertical or also horizontal extent?
Line 192. Omit “that”
Line 198. “origo” –> “the origin”?
Lines 213-215, 230-231. Some repetition.
Line 258. “relates” –> “is used to relate”?
Line 267. From when until August 2018? Line 446 refers to April 2013 to December 2018 but Figure 9 has none in any August.
Line 304. Better “. . local temperature minima (thermal wake centre) and local temperature maxima . .”?

Section 3
Line 331. “medium” –> “median”?
Table 2. Longevity seems to be written as hr:min:sec although stated as [min]. hr: is redundant. This also applies to Supplement table 1.
Line 381. “here” –> “there”?
Line 386. Better “. . wake, the . .” (add comma)
Line 391. Better “. . energy, on . .” (add comma)
Lines 414-415. I think there is literature about turbulent mixing (efficiency) that could substantiate the “small likelihood”, or you might be able to make a comparison as in lines 545-560. What you seem to be saying is that the CTD profiles on retrieval are showing the result of wake-induced mixing and subsequent (during the 3 hours) relaxation as the mixed water (less dense than ambient deeper water) spreads laterally and so becomes shallower. If so, I think this could be made a bit clearer. [If not, then clarification is definitely needed!]
Figure 10B. Omit “median” from horizontal axis label – or are you using a median value for each individual wake?
Figure 11. The caption should also explain the other symbols (bars, lines)
Line 506. “dashed” –> “hatched”. However, the lines giving hatching in the separation zone are too narrow; not obvious in normal magnification.

Line 667 – data availability. The sentence about “Acoustic measurement data” is not very satisfactory. Please see https://www.ocean-science.net/policies/data_policy.html and “Statement on the availability of underlying data” therein.

Dear Authors
Thank-you for your revised manuscript. I am suggesting a few minor edits or “Technical corrections” (below) after which you should upload to the Editorial system for publication. Your final version will be copy-edited and you should check that your intended meaning is retained. Thank-you for publishing in Ocean Science.
Yours sincerely
John Huthnance (Editor)

Technical corrections
Lines 93-94. “. . wake is needed, to identify . .” (move – or remove – comma)
Line 146. I don’t understand “trough” – please check.
Line 218. “Per” –> “By”?
Lines 348-349. “Due to . . widths.” – incomplete sentence (redundant?)
Lines 431, 432. “Temporal” is probably unnecessary. Better order is “Wake temporal longevity”.
Section 3.2.1 including heading, and line 662. “longevity” tends to imply time and “extent” or “length” might be better for the spatial aspect.
Line 483. “adaption” –> “adjustment”?
Lines 545-546. 3.9 GW is a rate (I guess average through the year) and not a “yearly input”.
Line 596. “form” –> “from”
Line 601. “depth” (typo)
Line 624. Omit “that”
Line 666. Better “depth. Wind mixing is homogeneously distributed over the Baltic Sea, whereas vessel mixing . .”