The open discussion has raised serious concerns about the manuscript, which need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication.

There is a legitimate concern about a paper in review in WRR with a very similar title - the two papers need to be clearly differentiated. I have personal concern that the "review" and philosophical discussions at the beginning of the paper stand in the way of what is otherwise a methodological paper. If you want the aims of the paper to stand out more, you may want to cut back on this lengthy and philosophical introduction, and go more quickly to the goals of this paper.

Also such a long review-type introduction leads the reader into thinking that the method presented is original and novel, and yet there is a similar paper in review in another journal: which one is the original version? this needs clarification.

The authors are impatient and openly disagreeing with the reviewers on many points, including the novelty of the method, the overlap with the WRR (in review) paper, but the reviewers' concerns are legitimate and understandable. It is the authors' responsibility to allay these concerns and respond positively to these concerns. I suspect that the authors already admit this in their comments. I am satisfied that there is an important application of a parameter estimation method being tested here, but this has to be presented and demonstrated in a dispassionate way to the satisfaction of the reviewers

I therefore recommend substantial revision of the manuscript that overcomes these legitimate concerns. On the positive side, this may be a communication issue, which is easy to fix.

In any case I intend to send back the revised paper back to the reviewers for their evaluation. I look forward to seeing and reading a revised manuscript.

Dear Luis and the authors: I have received favorable replies from two reviewers, although the second reviewer is still not 100% happy with the revisions, and especially wants the results section to be improved some more. He has given some specific suggestions. I have decided to recommend publication subject to some minor revisions: I will make a determination of its final acceptance. Please do one more round of revisions and submit and I will help to make it published without too much delay, Siva

I am happy with the revisions undertaken by the authors in response to the remaining comments and criticisms of the last 2 reviewers, and I am very happy to recommend publication of the manuscript in HESS in its current form. Congratulations.