One reviewer recommended minor revisions ans asked for further explanations and clarfications. The other reviewer recommended major revisions, particularly by improving the narrative structure and be more explicit on the added value of the new compound dry/hot index. I follow the recommendation of the second reviewer and will encourage the authors to submit a new manuscript that is more focused to illustrate the added value of the new indicator, and brings more material that is not essential to follow the rationale of the paper to the supplementary information. In addition the requests for further explanation/clarification by both reviewers should be accommodated. The paper will be sent our for review again to other reviewer(s)

Reviewer 1 considered the manuscript suitable after inor corrections, but reviewer #2 requested major revisions as the rationale, methodology and (surprising) outcomes were not very focused. The new manuscript has done a good job to accommodate all comments, but I will follow reviewer #2 assessment to send it out for review again.

As indicated by me when sending out the revised manuscript for a second round of review, the additional reviewer did make comments on the clarity of the justification and description of the new index and its assessment. The review comments give many suggestions on how to modify the manuscript in order to be considered for publication in HESS. Also, the reviewer did indicate to be willing to review a new submission.
I do recommend you to read the review comments carefully and adopt these one by one, particularly making clear what the innovative element(s) of this study are, to improve the clarity of the description of methodology and results, and to have (another?) check on the language of the manuscript. I will send out the revised manuscript to the reviewer for a final check