Dear Authors,

I would like to thank you for the thoughtful and extensive consideration of the comments raised by the reviewers. The responses to these comments are comprehensive, and on reviewing these do think these do address the points of concern raised. In several cases you have indicated the proposed amendments to the manuscript, while for others the amendments are quite a bit more extensive.

To review these I would like to refer back to the referees. However, I think this can only be properly done by reviewing both the rebuttals you have provided as well as the complete manuscript to make sure its integrity and clarity is maintained following the amendments.

Regards
Micha Werner

Dear Authors, as you may have seen in the reviewers reports on the revised manuscript, they both concur that improvements have been made. Both do suggest some minor revisions/technical corrections which I believe could be make quite swiftly. I would therefore like to ask you to consider these, and if appropriate make these small amendments to the manuscript. You will also be asked to submit a rebuttal to detail how these issues have been addressed and document any changes made.
Regards
Micha

Dear Authors,

I would like to thank you for your careful consideration of the reviewer comments, and discussion of the points raised by them. I think these have been answered thoughtfully, and changes made only where necessary. Indeed I think the response to the discussion on the calibration approach and the existence of a possible optimal parameter is one that I would also agree to. To some extent the use of the word calibration does traditionally suggest the finding of a unique optimal parameter set, which is indeed not the principal of the GLUE approach that you applied, which accepts the existence of multiple equivalent parameter sets.

I would like to now move forward and accept the manuscript for publication,

regards
Micha