Dear Authors
You may have seen the two referee reports on your revised manuscript. They have very different conclusions.
I agree with referee 3 that the application of your results to seiches in fjords can be justification for choice of OS as journal. However, I also agree with referee 1 that more work is needed to make the results applicable. Your laboratory values of parameters space do not tell the reader what may happen in a fjord that they are interested in. I do not think that you need to predict behaviour in all fjords, but you should say in what contexts your results could apply and in those cases what behaviour may be expected. Where do the results from Parsmar and Stigebrandt fit in with your results. "If the result were presented in a non-dimensional way, so they could be used by the ocean community" OS could be suitable. I wonder how the excess damping (obstacle compared with no obstacle) may depend on the amplitude(s) of the internal modes generated or their energy (input) relative to the surface wave.
NB in the table of parameters, row for h, it should read (=H2).
Yours sincerely
John Huthnance (editor)

Dear Authors
Thank-you for your revisions making more connection between your experiments and real fjords. Please take account of the three detailed comments below and enter your final manuscript in the OS Editorial system for publication. There will be copy editing and you should check that the result keeps your intended meaning.
Thank-you for publishing in Ocean Science.
Yours sincerely
John Huthnance (Editor)

Line 19. Omit “, known as seiches” – repetition.
Line 43. Can omit “the paper of”
Line 268. Better “. . seiche mode, as C/ω.” (add comma)