Dear Dr van der Molen

We have now received two reviews of your manuscript, and I would like to invite you to submit a revised manuscript to include responses to reviewer comments.

Best regards,

Clare Woulds

Dear Dr Van der Molen

Thank you for submitting a revised manuscript.

In general I feel that you have provided full and reasoned responses to reviewer comments. However there are two points on which I would like to request further changes to the manuscript. These are as follows:

1) In your response to the reviewer comment starting on page 4 line 15 (of the author response document) you have provided an extra figure and given detail of where and by how much the model differs from observations. Please now add some discussion and justification to address the question of whether a model which does not reproduce tides accurately in part of the region it covers is suitable for modelling far field effects. In particular, the reviewer asks ‘...why the model is failing elsewhere, such as the Celtic Seas, and do these failure mechanisms come into play in the modified tidal system?’ please provide an answer to this in the manuscript.

2) The point made by the reviewer at the top pf page 11 (of the author response document) is not fully addressed in the change made to the manuscript. Please amend so that you directly mention the feature off Ireland then give the range of explanations for why it is there.

I look forward to receiving a new version of the manuscript with these comments addressed.

Yours sincerely,

Clare Woulds

Dear Dr van der Molen

Thank you very much for your revised manuscript, I am now happy to recommend publication in Biogeosciences.

Regards,

Clare Woulds