The discussion paper has received comments from two reviewers. Reviewer #1 provides three broad comments related to the contribution, method, and conclusions. Reviewer #2 provides more specific and detailed comments, with an overall positive assessment of the work and its potential significance.

Based on both my own assessment and the review comments, I believe the proposed revisions by the authors will address many of the reviewer comments. I would ask for a few additional revisions to consider, which will further emphasize the novelty of the work and its interesting conclusions.

(1) The author response to Reviewer #1, Comment #1 contains some nice statements about the novelty and contribution of the work that I could not find in the discussion paper. I would encourage you to add sentences #2-3 of this response to the end of line 88 in the discussion paper.

(2) Reviewer #1 raises an interesting point in their Comment #3, which is also similarly raised by Reviewer #2 Comment #3 regarding the reasons for the separation of dry and wet seasons. I think the author response to Reviewer #1 is very interesting and makes an important point that the delta Q is more critical than the Q value itself in the sensitivity. I would ask the authors to consider emphasizing this point in the revision, as I believe it helps to address the comments of both Reviewers on this point.

The revision will likely be sent for re-review before a final decision is made.

The referee has now reviewed the revision and recommend that it can be accepted for final publication. I concur and therefore have decided to publish the paper as is.