The reviewers both in general appreciated your study, but they also provide long lists of very valuable comments. Based on your response I am optimistic that you will be able to address the main concerns.

Small comment re Df and DHF: I agree with the reviewer that the use of two different abbreviations might be confusing, perhaps F_subscript_DH

For future HESS-D papers: it is good to reply as early as possible to the reviewer comments as this allows for some discussion.

Best regards,
Jan Seibert

Thanks for your efforts with the revisions. While the reviewers appreciate that the manuscript has improved, they also raise a number of important issues, which still need attention.

Honestly, the relatively large number of minor issues such as typos and grammar errors are a bit annoying, especially as this is the second round. Please make sure to check the language more carefully for the next round. Especially with a native speaker on the author list, one would expect less errors of this kind. Please understand that this makes the reviewers' job unnecessarily more difficult.

Best regards,
Jan Seibert

Thanks for your efforts revising your manuscript. As the reviewer notes, there are still a number of smaller issues. Please pay careful to all these (and similar) issues when revising your manuscript.

Best regards,
Jan Seibert

Thanks for your careful revision. I find your paper now ready fir publication in HESS but you could make the figures more readable by, for instance, increasing the font size.

Best regards,
Jan Seibert