Dear authors,
thanks for the detailed replies to the reviewers, who both find the paper to bbe publishable conditional on revisions. Please submit the revised version and a full list of responses and changes. Please pay particular attention to the clarifications of methodological aspects needed according to the reviewers. I also agree with Reviewer 2's request to rethink and rephrase the objective. This will be important for assessing the soundness of the conclusions.
Best wishes,
Kerstin Stahl

Dear authors,

thanks for addressing the reviewer comments about aims and methodological clarifications so thoroughly. Reviewer 2 has made one remaining comment, which I would like you to respond to, please, before I can issue the final acceptance.

Best regards
Kerstin Stahl

Dear authors,

thanks for the revised manuscript, which I am now glad to accept.

In case you have the option to have the manuscript proofread by a native speaker, I think proofreading of grammar/sentence structure would benefit the readability.

Regarding the newly added discussion text I suggest to:
- delete "It is deliberate that.." and start the sentence thereafter - word usage of 'deliberate' makes little sense and
- change "but will be carried out in the future" into "may be a useful test for further studies" - (or something similar and more general).

Conclusion
"which have also been observed..." should be "which has..." as it relates to "discrepancy" (singular). Anyway it's a rather complicated sentence and I suggest to divide it into two to make it more readable.

Thanks again for submitting an interesting study to HESS,

Regards
Kerstin