Dear Authors,

I have appreciated the thorough and detailed discussion between the referees /commenter and the authors. The reviewers raised very pertinent and important issues, which the authors replied to in great detail and after serious consideration, doing justice to the substantial efforts taken by the reviewers in criticizing the paper and providing suggestions for improvement. I trust that the authors will do everything to revise their paper in a way that the suggestions and criticisms are properly addressed.

Regarding the use of the term "water worlds" I agree with the authors that this metaphor cannot be claimed exclusively. So I agree that the authors can make use of it. However, I expect the authors to make appropriate reference to the earlier use of this term and making it clear that their metaphor describes different aspects of the hydrological system.

I also agree with the authors that their paper can be classified as a research paper. However, where in the paper observations are made that qualify as an opinion, I suggest the authors to make that very clear, e.g. by stating "the authors are of the opinion that.." or likewise.

In the revised paper, please indicate clearly how you have addressed the referees critical comments. I shall then decide whether I send the paper back to the referees for further review.

please make the technical corrections presented by Reviewer #1