Dear authors,

Thank you very much for your detailed replies to the points raised by the reviewers as well as for the suggested changes in your manuscript. My recommendation is to submit a thoroughly revised version of your manuscript along the lines suggested by you and taking all issues raised by the reviewers into account. Given the significance of the reviewers' comments, I intend to send the revised manuscript out for review again (with the same reviewers as the original manuscript). That is why I indicated "major revisions".

Best regards,

Remko Uijlenhoet

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for your replies to the constructive comments provided by both reviewers, and for adjusting your manuscript accordingly. I agree with the reviewers that you have provided satisfactory responses and changes to the manuscript. However, I feel the first reviewer has a point regarding your usage of statistical statements in connection with the acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis at a certain significance level. Therefore, I invite you to reconsider your phrasing at a few locations in the manuscript (as indicated by the reviewer). Please provide the final version of your manuscript a.s.a.p. Obviously, the manuscript will not be sent out for review any more.

Best regards,

Remko Uijlenhoet

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for making these final changes to your manuscript, which is now acceptable for publication in HESS.

By the way, you may have noted that the use of p-values in the scientific literature has recently attracted quite some attention, following the publication of "The ASA's statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose", The American Statistician, DOI:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 (which was also covered in a recent issue of Nature).

Best regards,

Remko Uijlenhoet