Dear authors,

I thank you for the response to the reviewers comments. I will ask you to correct the manuscript according to their suggestions and upload a new version as soon as possible.

Best regards,
Fredrik Wetterhall

Dear authors,

I thank you for the revised version, the referees are happy with the responses in general. One reviewer had two minor corrections, and if you can address those (see below) I will accept the paper.

Best regards,
Fredrik Wetterhall

1. On the discussion of the influence of major dams, as well as the finding that the forecasting skill of the smaller catchments is better than the larger I find their response weak. A suggestion has also been added on the reliability of the rating curves due to changes in the cross section. While I agree this is the case, I think it is somewhat suggestive. The rating curve at for example Chokwé is indeed susceptible to change due to changing cross section, but I think this applies primarily for higher flow conditions. It is not clear on what data/information they base that suggestion.

2. Some of the changes made require revision in terms of language. Some of the new sentences are confusing. In one case on page 16 the authors added a discussion on ERSST and OISST. In subsequent sentences the preferred choice is indicated, but that choice does differ per sentence. That is somewhat confusing.