Dear authors,

thank you for submitting an interesting manuscript to this Special Issue.

To my impression, you have provided very thoughtful and targeted responses to the excellent reviews, which revealed some structural problems and suggested the manuscript to be accepted for publication after major revisions (in some sections). I kindly ask you to incorporate the revisions as described in your responses, which should improve the manuscript substantially.

I am not sure if your response to the following remark by Reviewer#2 is sufficient and fully captures the expectation:

"As written, the authors directly proposed a recipe for estimating the ensemble size, which (and I am sorry to say it) look like it is drawn from a hat. I do not understand why (and where) this comes up and why it is presented in that section. As presented, the recipe is stating the obvious and is presented as the center issues of the manuscript, but is not anyway. I would first specifically answered the tree questions and then maybe proposed a recipe that could be tested in a small paragraph just before the conclusion. In that sense, I think that the manuscript is showing some interesting results, but not fulfilling his promises…"

Please pay specific attention to this issue and try to make sure that "your promises" are kept.

Kind regards

Thank you very much for dealing with the very valuable reviewers' comments (and editors' wish) so carefully. I think that the manuscript has improved a lot and is now ready for publication.