Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS). Your paper “An Analysis of Swell and Bimodality Around the South and South-west Coastline of England“ has been critically reviewed by outside peer reviewers. After the discussion round, the reviewers recommend reconsideration of your paper following major revision. We invite you to resubmit your corrected manuscript after addressing all reviewer comments.
When resubmitting your manuscript, please carefully consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments. For a revised manuscript version, in order to make easier and faster for the reviewers to check the final manuscript, we require two separate documents:
1. Author response, it is Revision Notes explaining how and where (citing line number) each point of the Editor's/Reviewers' comments has been addressed. Should you disagree with any part of the reviews, please explain why. At the end of this revision notes a version of the revised manuscript showing the new/changed text using track changes or highlighting. To facilitate further review, add line numbers in the text.
2. A version of the revised manuscript without showing the new/changed text using track changes or highlighting.
Final acceptance is, however, contingent upon satisfactory revision along the lines suggested. Please be sure to upload your revised manuscript back to the electronic database.

Sincerely,
Mauricio González

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS). Your paper “An Analysis of Swell and Bimodality Around the South and South-west Coastline of England“ has been critically reviewed by outside peer reviewers. After the discussion round, the reviewers recommend reconsideration of your paper following major revision. We invite you to resubmit your corrected manuscript after addressing all reviewer comments.
When resubmitting your manuscript, please carefully consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments. For a revised manuscript version, in order to make easier and faster for the reviewers to check the final manuscript, we require two separate documents:
1. Author response, it is Revision Notes explaining how and where (citing line number) each point of the Editor's/Reviewers' comments has been addressed. Should you disagree with any part of the reviews, please explain why. At the end of this revision notes a version of the revised manuscript showing the new/changed text using track changes or highlighting. To facilitate further review, add line numbers in the text.
2. A version of the revised manuscript without showing the new/changed text using track changes or highlighting.
Final acceptance is, however, contingent upon satisfactory revision along the lines suggested. Please be sure to upload your revised manuscript back to the electronic database.

Sincerely,
Mauricio González

Dear Linlin Li and Co-authors

Your last corrected version of the paper “Field survey of the 2017 Typhoon Hato and a comparison with storm surge modeling in Macau” including the last comments of the reviewers has been satisfactorily revised for me. I am pleased to report that the results of the peer review process are favorable and I accept to publish the paper as is.

Sincerely,

Mauricio González
NHESS Editor
Sea and Ocean Hazards