Dear Authors,

You have received two rather critical reviews questioning some important aspects regarding (among others) the novelty and the used methods. In the revised version you should therefor be very clear about the novelty of this manuscript.

In your response to reviewer 2, you have defended the methods used. I will send the revised version back to the reviewer with the specific question to judge your arguments on this. I therefor suggest to also copy (as shorter version of) this defence to the revised version.

Another important point, raised by reviewer 1, is that the structure of the manuscript can be significantly improved. You have acknowledged this in your response, and I'm looking forward to the improvements in the revised version.

A minor point from my side is that within the field of hyrdology, precipitation is generally expressed as L/T, so in Fig. 11-13, I suggest to report the precipitation in mm/d.

Give the amount of work (and following the advice of both reviewers), major revisions are required.

With kind regards,

Martijn Westhoff

Dear authors,

The manuscript has been improved significantly, and the referee suggested only two minor issues to be improved.
Theses minor revisions will only be reviewed by me (editor).

With kind regards,
Martijn Westhoff

Dear authors,

The last minor suggestions of the reviewer have been incorparated in the manuscript. Now the manuscript is ready to be published: Congratulations!

With kind regards,
Martijn Westhoff