Dear authors,
I've read your manuscript, the reviewer comments and your reply. Based on this I request to make major revisions. My main comment is that the current manuscript is barely understandable for an outsider. It sometimes looks more towards a story board than a complete paper where the problem, the approach, and the results are explained. Therefore, I request the authors to spend more care to explain the problem, the reasoning behind their approach, helping the reader to understand tables, etc. For example the aim is missing, a site description would be helpful, and why is the data of Table 1 needed?

As suggested by both reviewers, the article can be converted to a technical note. I agree on this point and request the authors to convert it. But still, also for a technical note, more details are needed.

Furthermore, I agree with reviewer #1 that many parameter naming should change. The use of wA,wH,wL,cA,cH, and cL is confusing since it can be mistaken for w*A. As a rule: use single parameters for variables and make use of super and subscripts, so e.g., w_A would be OK. Note: LE is ok to use, since this actually L* E where L=latent heat of vaporization (J/m3 water) and E the evaporation (m/s). Also check whether all symbols are defined (e.g., I miss cA, cH, etc and A and H) and don't forget to mention the units!

So the conclude, the paper is of interest of the HESS-audience, but more care should be taken to the writing and explanations. Furthermore, incorporate the detailed comments of the reviewers.

Best,
Miriam Coenders