I have received two referees reports on the revised version of the paper. Referee 1 recommends publish after technical corrections -- gives one specific example of a correction/clarification needed and recommends a thorough re-checking of the paper. Referee 2 recommends publish after minor corrections. Therefore please can you provide a further revised version of the paper making the requested technical/minor corrections (or justify in a response why they are not necessary). I will then consider the paper further without sending again to referees.

Two further points: (i) Referee 3 on the first version of the paper did not wish to provide a report on the revised version. My own judgement is that you have responded thoroughly to that referee. (ii) Referee 2 requests comment on the relation to the methods used in the Mitchell et al (2015) paper. Referee 2 did not raise this point in their report on the first version of the paper, but nonetheless I think that it would be valuable if you could provide such comment. (For some reason you have an 'accepted' comment in the Mitchell et al reference in the revised version but not in the first version. The paper is now published so the 'accepted' should be removed.)

My impression is that you have responded carefully to the remaining points raised by the referees and therefore I am pleased to accept this paper for publication in ACP.