Dear Authors,

You have received two very positive reviews - with some very useful suggestions to improve the manuscript - and a very critical one (Student review).

I pretty much agree with your responses to the Student review, but I would like to highlight that this review shows that the aim of the study is not entirely clear. I carefully read the introduction again and I can understand the focus in the Student review on model calibration (which is, in my interpretation, not the aim of this study). I therefore suggest to improve (mainly) the introduction with more focus on the real aim/benefit of this study.

Taken all reviews together, I think minor revisions are justifiable. Nevertheless, I will look critically to the revised introduction.

With kind regards,

Martijn

Dear authors,

I have gone through all responses and revisions of the manuscript and would like to congratulate you with the results. But before publishing it I have a few very minor points (technical corrections):
1) every time you refer to the supplement, please refer to the specific section within the supplement. And by by changing the headers within the supplement to S1.1, S1.2 etc (similar as the figures in the supplement), you can even refer directly to S1.1 (instead of 'see supplement')
2) it needs some effort for the reader to understand Fig. 2 and 3. In the end it is well explained (especially L243-251 in the track-changes version is useful), but I think it will be slightly easier to interpret if, with an arrow, the direction of tau_2 is given (so an arrow pointing to the left for small to large tau_2). Secondly I think it is useful in Fig. 3a-c if the fraction p is also noted within the figure (e.g. as a kind of title).

With kind regards,
Martijn Westhoff