Dear authors,

Your manuscript was reviewed by two reviewers, and in the discussion you outlined how you address these points in the revision. Please incorporate these revisions into your manuscript, and I will then send it out to be seen by one reviewer. The technical terms for this decision is „major revisions“, but I see these as mostly minor issues, so I hope that this manuscript will soon reach a positive, final decision.

Best regards,
Axel Kleidon

Dear Authors,

Your paper has been re-reviewed by one of the original reviewers. I decided to accept your manuscript subject to minor revisions, given that the author made a few comments and feels that some of the points were not dealt with adequately. Please consider these. You do not necessarily need to follow them, but please respond to me and explain what you have decided.

I am looking forward to seeing your paper published soon.

Kind regards,
Axel Kleidon

Dear authors,

I return your manuscript again for minor revisions. After re-reading Reviewer #2 original review and your response, I can actually understand Reviewer#2's points that you did not respond well to the review.

For instance, the first comment of Reviewer #2 described the potential problem that some of the simulations release P from an unlimited reservoir. You responded by saying that you investigated uncertainties by using different parameterizations. This does not address the concern of the reviewer. When I read the second comment, I had a similar feeling that you could have addressed the point of the reviewer better, and could have accommodated this issue in your discussion section. This is just to give you two examples.

Also, the comment of including certain references was not meant to be simply included in a general statement at the beginning of the manuscript, but rather to contrast your results with studies that are close related.

This gives me the impression that this manuscript needs more work to adequately deal with the reviewer comments. After all, they spend their time to think about your study and raised valid concerns, and my impression is that the current version of the manuscript does not adequately reflect these.

When you resubmit your manuscript, please highlight the modifications in the revised text and provide a response.

Kind regards,
Axel Kleidon
Editor

Dear Authors,

Thank you for revising the comments made by reviewer #2 and addressing these in your manuscript. I have thus accepted your manuscript for publication.

Thank you for your efforts and I am looking forward to the published version.

Best regards,
Axel Kleidon