Dear Johannes Horak and co-authors,

Thank you for posting your responses to the four referees’ reports. The reviews are quite favorable, but they also raised several comments and suggestions that I urge you to consider as I believe they will further improve the quality of the manuscript. Based on my own reading, I find this to be an interesting paper that fits the scope of HESS well and will be of interest to the community.

I invite you to upload a revised manuscript, incorporating the proposed changes and additions, and making any other modifications where you see fit. I look forward to receiving the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,
Nadav Peleg

Dear Johannes Horak,

I have now received the reports from the three referees. All of them recommended the manuscript for publication. Reading the manuscript, I completely agree with their evaluation and I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has now been accepted for publication in HESS. Please note that reviewer #2 recommended some minor adjustments to the text. In addition, please find below some minor comments and suggestions from my side. The revised version of the manuscript will not be sent again for review.

Thank you for your contribution and best regards,
Nadav

Minor suggestions
[Conclusions section] If possible, I suggest avoiding using acronyms (e.g. ERAI, T, TNW, W, etc.). Some of the readers will likely read the conclusions before reading the entire manuscript.
[Figures 8 and 11] Consider moving to the Supplementary Material.
[Appendix A and Figures A1 to A4] Please move the appendix to the Supplementary Material, i.e. have them as a separate file and not part of the main text.