Thank-you for your revised manuscript addressing the reviewers’ comments. I am now asking you to consider some “Technical corrections” as follow here, for the final version that you enter in to the Copernicus Editorial system. There will be copy-editing and you should check that your intended meaning is retained.
Thank-you for submitting to Ocean Science.

Line 27. Better “. . causes nonlinear . . as the tide . .”
Line 35. Better “. . than acts on the”
Line 51. “. . terms . .”
Line 59. “resolvable” -> “solvable”?
Line 66. I prefer “. . in southern Iberia, for which cases”

Line 79. Better “. . direction, as described by”?
Lines 95, 96. Better with “,” after “discharge” and after “depth”?
Lines 98-99. Better “. . originating from . .”
Line 100. “. . depth in the denominator. . .”
Line 102. Omit “sake of”?
Lines 108, 110, 111. Rather repetitive of “independent/dimensionless parameters”
Line 127. Better “. . for instance, for the . .”
Line 130. Please replace “it” by what it refers to.

Line 136. “are featured with” -> “feature”
Lines 142-143. “until” -> “as far as”. Can omit “located”
Line 150. Can omit “e.g.”?
Line 169. “at” -> “in”

Lines 266-267. “. . K needs to be calibrated, based on the . .”
Lines 354-355. “. . twice those . .”?
Lines 364-367. These two sentences have contrary sense, so not “For instance” at beginning of second. Maybe “. . diurnal tides generally experience relatively less damping in the seaward reach (Figures 7a and 9a). [In the case of the Guadalquivir estuary, diurnal tides are more damped than semidiurnal tides very near the estuary mouth (x=0-7 km)]. . .”
Line 371. “. . implemented in both . .”
Line 376. “. . wave celerities for . .”
Lines 383-385. Can omit “the” before “Chebychev”, “linearization”, “conceptual”
Line 390. Can omit “the” before “Guadalquivir”

Line 407. “image” -> “imaginary”
Line 420. I prefer “. . sub-reaches; the solutions were obtained . .”