Thank you for your email and the comments that you have made in response to the reviewers. It would have been better if you had been able to address the detailed comments a bit more thorougly in the on-line discussion (perhaps acknowleding each of the points raised directly, even if you could not fully address them at this time). However, these are very unusual times and I fully sympathise with your predicament, particularly with the need to access the model. Therefore I am happy to suggest that you provide major revisions in response to the referees comments after which we will consider the manuscript again. If you require additional time please do contact the editorial office

best wishes
Andrew J. Kavanagh

Both reviewers are happy with the revisions made so far but have identifed some changes that need to be made to the manuscript.
Reviewer 1 is broadly happy and has provided some minor comments that must be addressed. They also suggest utilizing GSWMO9 to discuss a little more about the different tidal behaviours at the two sites, giving an example of how they could do this.
Reviewer 2 has also provided a list of minor commets that must be addressed; however they have slightly larger misgivings, highlighting that the abstract needs updating. They also note that the conclusion section, as it stands, is essentially a summary.
They raise two points:
1) they suggest that the authors should restructure the description of the semiannual oscillation parameters (fig. 1)
2) the deviations between the model and observations presented in fig. 4 are large and persist, such that the authors need to carefully address them with regard to the comparisons made.

Once these comments have been responded to I hope we can progress to publication. reviewer 1 does make the point that the grammar still needs correcting throughout the paper!