Three referees have reviewed this paper. Their response was rather mixed, ranging from minor revision to rejection. A number of critical comments were provided along with some suggestions for improving the paper. I am also concerned about the lack of significant novelty (apart from using ERA-Interim dataset) and the severe weaknesses in the development of the model input structures highlighted by Referee #3. Yet, I see some potential in this paper, and if the authors are willing to undertake a major and substantial revision of their work, I will send the revised paper (which should be uploaded along with a point-by-point response letter) for a further review round. Please note that I will likely involve new referees in such a process, as two out of the three referees have declared not to be willing to review this paper again.