The authors have been served well with three extensive reviews of their manuscript. They have provided initial responses to most of the reviewers' comments and have suggested a significant number of changes they could implement.

I invite the authors to submit an extensively revised manuscript, taking all comments provided by the reviewers into account. In particular, they should pay attention to avoiding overlap with previous work and clearly indicating what sets this paper apart from their previous work.

The revised version of the manuscript as well as the replies to the reviewers' comments will be sent out for review again.

Dear authors,

As you can see reviewers #1 and #3 have only minor (mainly textual) comments and suggestions concerning the revised paper. Please take those into account in preparing a new version of your manuscript.

Reviewer #2 still has some rather fundamental problems with your revised manuscript. They mainly concern (1) doubts about the novelty of your paper compared to your own previous work and (2) the lack of discussion concerning the climatological representativeness of the presented analyses.

These are valid concerns, that need to be addressed in a revised version of your manuscript. I believe, however, that addressing these issues mainly requires adding some new paragraphs of text to your manuscript, rather than presenting additional analyses. These new paragraphs should address the two issues raised above.

I look forward to receiving the revised version of your manuscript.

Best regards,

Remko Uijlenhoet

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for incorporating the suggested changes in your revised manuscript. I can now recommend to accept your manuscript for publication in HESS.

Best regards,

Remko Uijlenhoet