Dear Authors,

First of all, thank you for your response to the referees’ comments. The referees found your paper as well-written and presenting interesting results on atmospheric wave dynamics during Southern Hemisphere stratospheric warming. However, referees had some important objections to the present version of the manuscript, also questions and suggestions how to improve the manuscript, and this is why I suggest a major revision of the present version. Please, consider carefully and discuss in the revised version of the manuscript all comments of the referees. Me and one of the referees will review the manuscript again.
If you are prepared to undertake the improvements required, please submit the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point, which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript.

Kindest regards
Yours sincerely
D. Buresova

Dear Authors,
I would like to inform you that the manuscript angeo-2019-43 entitled “Quasi 10-day wave modulation of equatorial ionization anomaly during the Southern Hemisphere stratospheric warming of 2002” undergone the second revision. It is necessary to point out that quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved. Nevertheless, there still are some points which need your attention. For your convenience, the comments and suggestions are given below. Please, consider carefully and discuss in the revised version of the manuscript these additional comments. Me and one referee will review the manuscript again.
General comment:
This manuscript contains some interesting results and I find it improved in this revised version. In particular I find the results of the 10-day modulation of the TEC during the 2002 SH SWW event compelling. A major source of concern is lack of sufficient evidence on potential connections between the 10-day periodic variation of EIA crests and SSW/EEJ. Further statistical analysis that demonstrates this connection is required before publication can be recommended.
Other comments
• The abstract is not sufficiently developed.
• Line 23 ‘Norther Hemisphere (SH)’, is this a typo or the authors mean both NH and SH?
• Line 54: ‘The researches’, change to ‘Research’.
• Unit missing in the legend of Figure 5.
• Line 166: ‘A series of studies’, which ones? Include appropriate references.
• Line 208-221: While the observed 10-day oscillation may be ascribable to the SSW the
manuscript presents insufficient evidence to justify this claim.

Kindest regards
Yours sincerely
D. Buresova