Thank-you for your revised manuscript. I am asking for some “technical corrections” before it appears in Ocean Science. None of these are meant to change what you intend to say. Page and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript.

(Abstract) page 1 line 12. “signal-to-noise ratio” (is more usual)?
Also page 3 line 10, page 3 line 17, page 14 line 8, figure 4 caption

(Introduction)
Page 1 line 30. “westwards”
Page 2 line 18. “. . interactions so that they become” reads better I think.
Page 3 line 4. “,” after “estimate”

(2.2 Glider data)
Page 5 line 9. Better “Jason-2 track in Sept-Oct . .” (i.e. “in” – or “during” – not “from”).

(3 Spectral Analysis . .)
Page 7.
Line 23. “or” -> “of” or “for”.
Lines 27-30. I think the units here (cm**2/cpkm) and in Figure 4 (m**2/cpkm) should be the same. I don’t mind which; although mks are generally favoured I appreciated that cm (and cm/s) provide a better scale here.

(4.2 Saral / Glider . .)
Page 10 line 12. “cm/s” – I don’t mind but there was a reviewer comment about units.

(4.3 Cryosat-2 / Glider . .)
Page 11.
Line 6. Better “42.1°N, are . . intense in”
Line 7. “have” -> “had”
Line 13. Omit “,” after “Jason-2”
Line 18. “cm/s” – I don’t mind but there was a reviewer comment about units.

(5 Co-located . .) NB my preference for spelling here.
Page 12 line 28. “-” -> “,”
Line 29. “low” -> “weak” [This is a particularly strong case for changing from “high” or “low” to a more appropriate adjective. There are other places where I would not have used “high” or “low” – you might like to consider this].
Line 33. I suggest “Planned future analysis . .”. [The first comment of Reviewer 1 is probably the most substantial of all and you wrote a paragraph in reply. However, this sentence seems to me to be the only response in the manuscript itself. Adding “planned” will make clearer in the paper that you have taken the comment on board.]

(6 Discussion)
Page 13.
Line 24. “smaller-scale” (or “finer-scale”)?
Line 30. “co-location”?
Page 14 lines 11-12. “. . extend the observations (duration and offshore extent) of the Northern Current and recirculation near Toulon.”? [Your present text suggests that the combined observations extend the currents!]

Table 1 footnote 2. Omit “second” (I don’t think it helps)?

References. I have not generally checked these but Guilhou et al. 2013 and Millot 1999 cited on page 1 are missing. “Guilhou” or “Guihou”?

Figure 2. The values across the bottom are cpkm (to tally with the top). Cpkm = wavenumber/(2pi).

Figure 3 caption. Page 21 line 8. “dependent” (spelling).

Figure 4. The panels seem to be swapped (<->).

Figure 6 caption. Page 21 line 5. “co-located”?

Figure 7 panel a. Following up a reviewer comment, maybe the red arrow should be labelled “0.1 m/s”.

Figure 9 caption. Page 24 line 2. “Co-located”?

Figure 11 panels b, c, left side. What are the red curves?