This paper studied meteotsunamis in the eastern Yellow Sea, and proposed monitoring guidelines in this area. It is well-structured and the results are presented clearly. But it needs a major revision to be considered as a publication in NHESS journal. The authors need to include the analysis on the period of detected waves and the local resonance at the tidal gauges. Authors have written many sentences in a passive voice, and their claims and explanations sound weak.

Major comments

One of the main characteristics of tsunami waves (including meteotsunamis) is the period of waves since the energy of a tsunami is due to its long period. This study only considered the maximum amplitude waves and did not analyze the period of the waves. The authors need to perform wavelet analysis or Fourier spectrum analysis, and consider peak-to-trough heights rather than maximum amplitudes to confirm meteotsunami cases. 

Another important characteristic of meteotsunamis is the local amplification. The local factor can be decisive to forecast the severity of meteotsunamis in the eastern Yellow Sea since the coastline is long and complicated with many islands. The authors can improve this work if they include local factors.

1. The authors studied the local behaviors of tidal gauges (shown in Figure 3), but chose the threshold of 15 cm for all the tidal gauges. Montserrat (2006) suggested 4-sigma and Dusek et al. (2019) suggested 6-sigma and 20 cm (peak-to-trough height) for choosing possible meteotsunami events. Please explain why the authors have chosen the 15 cm threshold. 
2. In Table 3 and Figure 11, the authors presented average amplitude and occurrence rate to evaluate meteotsunami events. Damages on the coast can occur in a small area, and the occurrence rate can be small. Can these parameters represent the severity of meteotsunamis?
3. IIn Table 4, authors proposed guidelines for meteotsunami monitoring. It is unclear why authors choose 30 % occurrence rate for extreme. The occurrence rate cannot be used to forecast events since the occurrence of meteotsunami can be detected after it has occured.

Minor comments

L 14 unclear “It appears that the specific characteristics (intensity, occurrence rate, and propagation) of the pressure disturbance are in common on extreme meteotsunami events that are classified by applying the hazardous meteotsunami conditions among the 34 events.”

L 25 "that dominant" -> that are dominant

L 25-26 remove “which are”

L 28 remove “as the first stage”

L34 remove “worldwide until recently”

L35 remove “most”

L36 “The meteotsunami event on March 31, 2007, was an event in which” -> On March 31st, 2007,

L40 “It was the event that occurred with the strongest intensity in the largest area of the meteotsunami events reported in the Yellow Sea so far” -> It is the strongest meteotsunami event reported in the Yellow Sea so far

L43 “This event suggests that the timing of meteotsunami occurrence is an important factor that can determine the level of human casualties.” - This argument is vague, and the authors need to specify their assertion. 

L50 remove “Overall”

L52 remove “besides the accident events”

L113 “calculation and threshold” -> calculating the threshold

L114 “which known”->which is known

L126 remove “was the meteotsunami event of accident since 2010, which”

L130-131 remove “In general… and”

L149 “We need to check .. as a meteotsunami” It is not clear why we need to find it. 

L229-231 Two sentences are inconsistent. Authors explain the occurrence tendency, then claim that they are irregular. I think 10 years are too short to propose any tendency. 

L314 “pattern, for example,”->pattern. For example,

L356 “specific year” -> “specific season”

L390-393 “Another pressure jump … the west of Lat. A-C” What is the reference for the Greenspan resonance in this area? 

The manuscript "Pressure-forced meteotsunami occurrences in the eastern Yellow Sea over the past decade (2010-2019): monitoring guidelines" by Kim et al. represent a worthy addition to the meteotsunami research of the eastern Yellow Sea, and I conditionally suggest it for publication. 

My main concern is the quality of the English language which is rather poor. The manuscript MUST be proofread by either a native speaker with knowledge on the subject or someone with much better working knowledge of the language. I will not list any mistakes, but there are some in almost every sentence. 

I now list some specific comments: 

Abstract 

• change "which shows a strong seasonal trend." to "revealing a distinct seasonal pattern."
• list "favourable conditions" which you have found
• change "the monitoring system" to "the meteotsunami monitoring system"

Introduction

• change "forced long waves" to "forced ocean long waves"
• change "to the pressure disturbance" to "to the atmospheric pressure disturbance"
• change "waves and their fundamental periods" to "waves and fundamental periods of shelves, bays or harbours". 
• change "at that time remains unknown" to "was unknown at that time"

Observation system and pressure jump

• Change the title to "Observation system and extraction of meteotsunami generating pressure disturbances" or simply to "Meteotsunami monitoring system" 
• It is implied (around line 115) that various intensities were tested, but no information on the results of these tests is given. Please explain how did you choose the 1.5 hPa/10 min rate. Also, have you tested intensities over shorter time intervals, e.g. XY hPa/5 min? Please discuss.  

3 Classification of pressure-forced meteotsunami dates 

• change the title; "dates" were not pressure-forced; sea levels were pressure forced or meteotsunami; perhaps: "Classification of pressure-forced" meteotsunami events 

3.1 Characteristics of the accident events

• "which means the inverted barometer response" - no, the inverted barometer response is ~1cm/hPa - what you have here is much stronger - so, this means "resonant effect between the propagating air pressure disturbance and long ocean waves"! 
• "phase relationship between pressure jump and high-frequency sea level.." - what "phase relationship"? "In-phase, out-of-phase, almost simultaneous appearance"? 
• What kind of filter did you use? Please state and give an appropriate reference. 
• Figure 3. and accompanied analysis/text - I like this idea for extracting the extremes. However, since the events are almost symmetric around zero I would consider looking at the wave heights instead of at amplitudes and extracting the events in a similar way. 

3.2 Process of classifying pressure jump and meteotsunami dates

• Figure 4. It is not clear from this Figure what was excluded "Sample data collection: 68% (1 sigma)." I suggest writing "Exclusion of dates with less than 68% of available data" - sigma is a strange variable to use when it comes to a number of data. 
• change "was controlled in the first" to "was removed in the first" 
• You say that you removed daily mean from daily samples. That is not really necessary if you filtered the data as well, and you have, as I understand? 

4 Pressure-forced meteotsunami occurrences

4.1 Temporal and spatial occurrences

• Table 2. Mark the strongest amplitude of each event with bold letters, or underline. So, in the first row that would be 33.3 at MS station... 
• Line 234-235. Discuss here or in discussion (better in discussion) why do you think that meteotsunamis are more common during March-May
• Figure 6. Think about adding some strength parameter to this Figure - for example, for each month try plotting median height at stations at which it was recorded. 
• Line 240. change "The spatial vulnerability" to "The spatial spread" or "The spatial pattern". 
• Figure 7. Instead of showing a total number of events, show the number of events per year - this way, the effect of shortness of time series will be removed. 

4.2 Favourable conditions of pressure jump for meteotsunami occurrence

• In your list (line 260) condition (3) is the same as condition (2) but stronger - remove the condition (2). 
• Figure 8. I like the idea
• Figure 9. I suggest adding another column in which filtered air pressure time series are shown, starting at the top with the northern stations, and ending, at the bottom with the southern stations - or another way around. 
• It is not clear how were speed and direction of propagation assessed? From radar images or from air pressure data? Please explain. If from the radar data, confirm it with air pressure data. 
• Figure 11. I like the idea of this Figure as well. 

Discussion 

• Please discuss reasons why do you suppose meteotsunamis are most common from March to May. 
• Please give a point-by-point schematic (perhaps a figure) on how the meteotsunami warning system will be designed: Thus e.g., constant monitoring of air pressure, an automatic warning to personal when air pressure rate of change surpasses a given threshold at one of the beacon stations, careful examination of all air pressure stations, determination of speed and direction as soon as possible, issuing a warning. 

As a final note, I compliment the authors for the nice research and figures. 

The manuscripts documents a climatology of meteotsunami events, by a systematic examination of sea level and air pressure data in a 10-years period. I found the presented material interesting, worth of publication, yet - as Reviewer #2 commented - the level of language is really not at satisfactorily level, which does not apply only to pure syntax and grammar, but also on sentence constructions and some terminology. So, the language should be improved before eventual acceptance.

I will not repeat comments of other reviewers, in particular of these being the result of language problems, but to add the following:

- "monitoring guidelines" should be omitted for the title, as this is not examined but only discussed in the manuscript.

- Line 13. "Spatially frequent" cannot be used to describe something happening at a single tide gauge, please rephrase.

- Line 126 and more. "meteotsunami event of accident" - it should be better to say "destructive meteotsunami events" or else. Even more, for classification of meteotsunami events you may use the newly proposed classification of meteotsunami intensities by Vilibic et al. (NH, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04679-9). 

- Lines 248-250. Several problems in this sentence, including "yellow sea" with small letters ... Change to something like "... is expected to be a beacon tide gauge.", and omit "under any pressure disturbances" (as not necessary). What is "first meteotsunami"? (again clumsiness in language)

- Lines 278-280. That is for sure, and even quantified for the Adriatic - see Fig. 7 in Denamiel et a. (2020, JPO, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-19-0147.1) .

- Line 325-326. Why? As it is known that it is not key factor in some other parts of the world (see previous comment)?

- Lines 334-347. Is is necessary to provide the explicit formula for computation of air pressure disturbance and speed.

- Lines 363-367. Can you discuss eventual connection between synoptic patterns and meteotsunami occurrence also in Yellow Sea? I.e. by examining climate of synoptic patterns above Yellow Sea or Korean Peninsula (as published in literature) or similar?