Please, provide a revised version, making great attention to the sentences and figures which were copied from published papers. The copy of sentences and the reproduction of figures from a published paper wase the main reason why the paper was submitted to a further stage of revision.
With respect to the changes anticipated in your reply to the comments, I list below a few technical comments.
Point 4. Avoid the use of i=1-3, which means i=-2. I suggest, for instance, i∈{1,2,3}.
Point 5. Rephrase "as those did in".
Point 8. "and may be negligible" should be substituted, possibly with "and possibly negligible" or "and may be neglected".

See the attached form for scientific remarks and technical comments.

The paper has been revised, but unfortunately, the answers to the posed questions are not fully satisfactory.
In particular, I recall the following two basic questions.
(1) Page 2, lines 11 to 17. This paragraph should be rewritten, because the sentences which have been added are not very clear and do not provide a very logical argument.
(2) Page 11, line 33 to page 12, line 3. These statements are not supported by a rigorous demonstration.
A specific questions about equation (48): is tilde missing above each quantity?
I hope that the authors can fix these problems, so that the paper will be finally acceptable for publication.

I think that the revision process can be considered satisfactory, as the main flaws, which emerged from the first version, have been fixed and the scientific quality is sufficient for publication on HESS. However, a burdensome copy-editing work will be necessary.