I think the authors and reviewers for their discussion on this manuscript. The reviewers provided important and constructive comments to strengthen and clarify the methods and the main contribution of the manuscript. I find that the authors have carefully considered the reviewer comments and now request that the authors make the changes proposed in the author responses.

In their revisions, I would ask the authors to pay close attention to emphasizing the novelty of the approach (as noted by Reviewer #2) and provide a more complete description of the methods (a major comment of Reviewer #1). I will send the revised manuscript out again to at least one reviewer as well as review the revised manuscript myself to ensure that the review comments have been fully incorporated.

Kindly,
Stacey

The revised discussion paper was sent back out for review to determine if the review comments were sufficiently addressed.

While Reviewer #1 felt that the paper could be published "as is", Reviewer #2 did not feel that revision to address the novelty of this paper's contribution was addressed in a sufficient way. After looking over the revised track-changes manuscript, the authors' proposed responses, and the reviewer comments, I concur with Reviewer #2.

For example, the authors noted in their proposed responses that they would, "carefully rewrite and add many contents in the revised manuscript, and add some new references about the use of DWT for trend identification, mainly to more clearly explain the DWS approach proposed and emphasize the advantage of the approach." In examining the track changes version of the revised discussion paper, the only change I was able to observe is that a few more references have been added to the introduction.

Since neither reviewer recommended rejection, I will not overrule this recommendation. However, I do hope to see the comments of Reviewer #2 fully addressed in this next revision. The discussion paper will once again be sent back out for review before making a final decision on publication.

The manuscript has not received 3 additional reviews. All reviews recommend that the paper is a useful contribution and that previous reviewer comments have been sufficiently addressed.

However, the reviewers did note that there are still some areas of the manuscript where the grammar could be improved. For example, in section 2, the word "the" is missing in a few places before the term "mother wavelet." Also, the caption in figure 1 should be revised so that the abbreviations are in parenthesis and not quotes (see examples in captions to figures 2 and 3). Please give the manuscript a final editorial view before acceptance.

Thank you for providing the corrections requested and for another complete proof-reading of the article. The article can now be published in its current form, subject to final copy-editing of the paper.