Noise of Internal Solitary Waves Measured by Mooring-Mounted Hydrophone Array in the South China Sea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

· When you include one acronym, write the first letter of the definition in capital letters, then you can use only the acronym. Examples: "Internal Solitary Waves (ISWs)" [line 28], "Acoustic Doppler Current Profiles (ADCPs)" [line 102], "Power Spectra Density (PSD)" [line 178], or "Vortex-Induced Vibration (VIV)" [lines 91,200,...]. Please, once the acronyms have been defined, please use them correctly. The acronym PSD is not used when it should be (the first PSD is in Fig.4 but it is not until Fig.6 that PSD is mentioned), and SCS is unnecessary and overused.
· The acronym SNR is created and with no more use than that time [line 83]
· Try not to include acronyms in the anstract
· CTD is a used acronym, but not defined previously [line 106]

· I consider too much history about ISW in the South of China Sea. It is not a book, reduce it with only the necessary information to contextualize your contribution. There are too much references about history/context and not relative for your work on the manuscript.
· Maybe you can put the information between brackets in plain text as "frequencies above 20 Hz" and not "f>20 Hz" [line 78]

· A robust explanation of the choice of data analyzed is missing. This data, is your selection? Why September and October 2016 and March 2017? [Figure 2]. It would be more coherent to have 3 days equispaced over the same year or 3 days with different scenarios (environmental conditions).
· It is common to present the data in chronological order, or by importance (in which case, explain the reason for selection) [Figure 2 and 5]

· The label of the color bar is missing in all figures: Figs. 2.c, 2.f, 3.c, 5.f, and 8.c
· Please, indicate the units in Table 2.
· When you say "one hour later" in the caption of Fig.4, it is understood that it is from 6:02 to 7:02 or from 7:00 to 7:02? Clarify it.
· I suggest you create a new figure (Fig.4.b) where the difference in PSD between the two PSD curves in Fig.4
· In Fig.2 and Fig.5, I would reorder the caption: now is "abcdef", to "adbecf" 

· Are commercial hydrophones used on the array? (if yes, indicate the brand) Do you have calibrated all hydrophones on the array? Do you have their RVR (Received Voltage Response) characterized? I read "the sensitivity was -175 dB" [line 119]. But this level is referenced to what? Is this level the same in all working frequency spectrum? It is common to indicate the sensitivity value at which frequencies it is fulfilled without decaying more than -3 dB.
· I don't think it is right to talk about the hydrophones in the array (such a long array) and just present some data. It is necessary to clarify why the data chosen for the hydrophones shown in the analysis are presented. Are the same analyses and conclusions valid for any hydrophone along with the array?

· f_8 in equation 1 is common to indicate this type of frequency? If not, I suggest "f_VIV" to improve comprehension.
· About Table 3: I suggest to present the velocity in cm/s and not in m/s. Además sugiero estudiar una representación de velocidad en cm/s vs freqeucny value (f_8). Is some correlation (linear, exponential...) between them?

· Section 4 seems to me to be more of a "repeat analysis using other data" rather than a "comparison" as I do not see a comparison of the data. 

· The conclusion needs to be improved: it should not only explain what has been done in the paper but also address (for example) the possibility of creating a high marine current warning or the possibility of creating real-time marine current monitoring based on the analysis techniques presented in the paper. Otherwise, the text shows different signal analyses without any concrete purpose.  
 

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your constructive comments concerning our article (Manuscript ID: jmse-1544401). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript. All the authors have seriously discussed about all these comments. According to the your comments, we have tried best to modify our manuscript to meet the requirements of the journal. Point-by-point responses to the reviewer are highlighted using red colored text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Report

Manuscript No.: jmse-1544401

 

I would start by commending the authors for the job well done. However, this paper is not suitable enough to be published in its current form. I noticed that there is no theorem, convergence or stability proved in this paper, which I think is not agreed with the scope of this journal. The English needs to be polished, punctuation mark needs to be administered after each equation. Finally, the authors should (if possible) compared their results to the already existing results (for instance, comparing the results to other results gotten from another methods, e.g Homotopy perturbation method, Sumudu transform method, etc.).

However, I would suggest that the paper should be accepted with minor revision due to some of the corrections I pointed above and in order to raise the standard of this paper. I will be available for further revision of this paper.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your constructive comments concerning our article (Manuscript ID: jmse-1544401). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript. All the authors have seriously discussed about all these comments. According to the your comments, we have tried best to modify our manuscript to meet the requirements of the journal. Point-by-point responses to the reviewer are highlighted using red colored text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf