|The authors did a good job responding to the points raised in my earlier review. I only have a few additional minor comments. |
My page and line numbers refer to the version of the paper with changes highlighted.
Page 1, bottom line: “transportation” -> “transport”
Page 2, line 14: “overpass each location on earth at two local times specific to this location“
This is a bit misleading, because the measurements from a sun-synchronous platform are all made at the same local time (for a given latitude). So, the local time is not really specific to this location. For latitudes between about 60 S and 60 N the local time of the measurements is within 1 hour of the local time of the equator crossing.
Page 2, line 15: „The global coverage nevertheless enables tidal studies on shorter timescales also for instruments on these satellites“
This is also a bit misleading, because it’s only true for high latitudes, where the satellite „flies“ through different local times quickly.
Page 2, line 28: „This leaves reanalyses data“ -> „This leaves reanalysis data“
Page 2, line 34: „become more“ -> „became more“
Page 4, line 26: „The most important to us is“
Something is missing here, i.e. the subject of the sentence.
Page 5, line 20: „.. we apply the same composition“
„Composition“ may be misleading here. I suggest using „data treatment“, but leave it to the authors to decide.
Page 6, line 2: „compose“
Same comment as above. I’m not sure all readers will interpret this correctly.
Page 8, line 28: „westwards observation direction“ -> „westward observation direction“
Page 9, line 9: „lower most“ -> „lowermost“
Page 9, line 23: „A possible source of this structure is the mixing of different tidal waves with different vertical wavelengths or propagation directions.“
Could this also be a retrieval artifact? The vertical structure reminds me of oscillations often occurring in profile retrievals.
Page 12, line 9: „This indicates that the coherence time of short timescale disturbances of the diurnal tide might actually be longer than the reanalysis predicts.“
It may also indicate that some of the variability seen in the measured data is not real, right? This possibility should also be mentioned/discussed.