1) I appreciate the reply provided by the authors but I hardy find in their revised manuscript what has been done. Authors mentioned, e.g.,

"Reply: Thank you for your advice. We will address the points in the revised paper accordingly." I wonder what was done? Where? Please indicated with page and line number, or highlighted text what has been done to address reviewers comments.

2) I wonder which tests have been performed to find the causality chain proposed in Fig 8. I guess this is the main goal of this paper and should be highlighted in the introduction. Introduction is too short in my opinion. No in depth literature review.

3) Authors should formulate a system of hypotheses and a way to test it.

In my opinion this manuscript is not ready for publication yet.

I appreciate the correction of the authors. I suggest following corrections before publications:

1) Standardise the use of the word figure: I found: Fig., fig. Figure, figure. Use only one form.

2) Fig 9 is part of the methods and should be introduced in section 2 e.g., last paragraph . Please mention that this causality chain is your main hypothesis. At the moment Figure 9 is not referred in the text!

3) Explain the units of the legend in Figure 8. 50 what? write 50 kg m-1 s-1/10years

LS

I assessed the authors' response to the set of minor revisions requested by the previous Editor and I do think the authors have addressed them.