The manuscript have been revised by two reviewers. Overall, the reviews are supportive and, in their replies, the authors seem confident to be able to address the main issues raised during the revision process. In particular, both reviewers highlighted the need to expand section 4.3, including the results of all three MPS methods. In their reply, the authors argue that the proposed analysis cannot be done due to the relative small size of the patterns contained in TI. This weakness of the methodology was not clearly stressed in the original manuscript and it should be clarified and discussed in the revised manuscript. If the authors decide to revise and resubmit the manuscript to HESS they should carefully address this issue.

The Authors have seriously taken in considerations all the comments and provided a stronger revised manuscript. I therefore recommend its publication in its current form.