In the present revised version of the paper "Mechanisms of variability of decadal sea-level trends in the Baltic Sea over the 20th century" the authors have addressed most of the reviewers comments. However, I still think that some major revisions are necessary in order for the manuscript to be publishable in ESD.
i) The authors responded to my major comment A) in the response letter by showing a comparison of the sea level trends and the sea level trend residuals. However, they did not include it in the manuscript. I still think that it is important for the reader to know how much of the sea level trends can be explained by the residuals and is thus independent of the direct atmospheric forcing. Further, the sentence in line 32-33, page 7 makes no sense. Maybe remove the "show"?
ii) Again, the authors responded to my major comment B) in the response letter, but in the manuscript it is still not always clear, what time period is used for the analyses.
iii) The authors now included contours or added a sentence to indicate the significance of the shown correlations. But what method was used to calculate the significance levels?
iv) The conclusion section is still very short and the implications of the results are not sufficiently discussed.
v) Again, the authors reply to my comment 2.) on the number of the tide gauges shown only in the response letter, but the information should also be included in the manuscript.
vi) The labelling of the figures needs to be improved. It should be clear from the figures, which variable is show at what location in which season. Especially, in multi-panel figures like Fig. 5 it is very confusing otherwise. |