Dear Peter et al.,

Your paper had received opposing reviews. I sent the revised version to the most critical referee. The referee has raised three points that are still not satisfactorily. My personal impression is that you have reacted to the critics of this reviewer to some extent. E.g. a difficult opinion on the mathematical method (point #3) should not hinder the publication.
However, I would ask you to give a detailed answer to the review and prepare a yet revised version
of the paper that also includes the aspects and corrections listed below.

1. It is not clear to me, why one model that seems to be always at the low end of
the deduced CH4 emissions: the Lagrangian NAME model. Is that because
of the Lagrangian formulation of the model? Or because the lack of observation
stations?

2. Can you understand that the annual cycle of wetland emissions is reduced in
Northern Europe with respect to the WETCHIMP study?
and opposite than the annual cycle increases in the three other parts?
Would you say that the WETCHIMP study is incorrect in that respect?

To Point #2 of the review:
Although the model descriptions are updated in the supplement, I would likely ask
you to add some more information to section 3.2. /table 2, such that in the
paper the model diversity would be better understandable without reading the supplement.
That should be a few more sentences about the methods (Lagrangian/Eulerian) underlying data (if different) resolution etc.

technical corrections:
line 11 4.3 (2.3-8.2) Tg CH4 yr -1
line 26 globally averaged tropospheric CH4 mole fraction

Dear Peter et al.,

I am happy to accept your paper for publication in ACP. I have added the last discussion and the reasons for my decision as an editor comment to the interactive discussion. This does also include your last reply.

regards, Jens-Uwe