Impacts of Atmospheric Pressure on the Annual Maximum of Monthly Sea-Levels in the Northeast Asian Marginal Seas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some small edits:

 

32:          Check tense, I would replace with:

                Sea-level rise due to climate change is seriously threatening the lives of human beings

 

76:          change to…” is available on the CMEMS web site”

130:        replace ‘would’ with ‘will’

185:        remove comma

262:        “are well related” not “is well related”

267:        were not significant

271:        NEAMS for period H than period L

Author Response

32:     Check tense, I would replace with:

       Response) We revised it as follows according to your suggestion.

        "Sea-level rise due to climate change is seriously threatening the lives of human beings" 

76:      change to…” is available on the CMEMS web site”

     Response)  We have changed the sentence according to your suggestion.

130:    replace ‘would’ with ‘will’

    Response) We replaced it with “will” according to your suggestion.

185:       remove comma

    Response) We have removed comma according to your suggestion.

262:       “are well related” not “is well related”

    Response) We corrected it according to your suggestion.

267:       were not significant

     Response) We have made the correction according to your suggestion.

271:       NEAMS for period H than period L

  Response) We have changed the sentence according to your suggestion

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:

The authors have improved their manuscript. They could have improved the significance by considering further scientific questions regarding the monthly sea-levels in the NEAMS.

There are just a few considerations left before publication.

Specific comments:

Throughout the manuscript: The term “atmospheric pressure anomaly difference” does not really make sense. It is the same as the term “atmospheric pressure difference”, and this name is clearer and less confusing. This holds for all "anomaly differences".

line 21f: The sentence “Small atmospheric...” can be omitted, since this is clear from the previous sentence.

line 41ff: “The volume transport … is influenced … for a period of 100 days or more.” This is not understandable.

line 139: Taiwan and Tsushima Warm Currents are still not visible in Fig. 1, please indicate these currents. Remember that people may read your paper, who are not that familiar with all the currents in your region.

Figures:

Fig 1: Please indicate the Taiwan and Tsushima Warm Currents (e.g. with pointing arrows and names).

Fig. 13: There is no reference to this figure in the text. You could add a paragraph at the end of the Discussion section describing and referring to Fig. 13 – essentially, moving the explaining parts of the caption (“Strong wind stress ...” and “Weak wind stress ...”) from caption to discussion section.

Author Response

Throughout the manuscript: The term “atmospheric pressure anomaly difference” does not really make sense. It is the same as the term “atmospheric pressure difference”, and this name is clearer

Response) We corrected the sentence following your comment.

line 21f: The sentence “Small atmospheric...” can be omitted, since this is clear from the previous sentence.

Response) We removed the sentence according to your suggestion.

line 41ff: “The volume transport … is influenced … for a period of 100 days or more.” This is not understandable.

 Response) We have revised it as follows

       “Temporal variations of volume transport in the Korea Strait (KS), a major strait in the NEAMS, is influenced significantly by along-strait wind stresses, atmospheric pressures, and sea-level differences between the Pacific and the EJS for timescales longer than 100 days.”

line 139: Taiwan and Tsushima Warm Currents are still not visible in Fig. 1, please indicate these currents. Remember that people may read your paper, who are not that familiar with all the currents in your region.

Response) We have modified it according to your suggestion.

Figures:

Fig 1: Please indicate the Taiwan and Tsushima Warm Currents (e.g. with pointing arrows and names).

Response) We have modified it according to your suggestion.

Fig. 13: There is no reference to this figure in the text. You could add a paragraph at the end of the Discussion section describing and referring to Fig. 13 – essentially, moving the explaining parts of the caption (“Strong wind stress ...” and “Weak wind stress ...”) from caption to discussion section.

Response) We added a paragraph at the end of the Discussion according to your suggestion.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The adoption of comments has improved the quality of the article.

Author Response

• Thank you for your previous comments.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Hi,

I have put comments in the attached PDF. 

The analysis is fine but the article lacks clarity of thought, the reader has to slug through what the question is, what the data show and why it matters. You need to engage with the reader even if this is a scientific paper.

The use of referencing High and Low effects in the same sentence is confusing and not required, just present one case and say that for the other periods the effects are reversed. 

Your use of commas is somewhat random, commas are pauses that allow you to introduce another item into the sentence so use them as needed. Read the sentence out loud and see if you need to pause, if you don't then remove the comma.

Probability p values are normally represented as being less than a certain threshold value not just as 0.00.

Some of the figure identifiers ('(a)') are too large, please make them fit the rest of the text.

You use lots of anacronyms, just check that you need these, if you don't refer to that item again in the test or figures then you don't need it. In some cases I had to go back and find what each one meant which defeats the purpose.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please consult the pdf file provided where comments for improving the quality of the article are given.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf