Dear Thomas,

both original reviewers have now looked at your revised manuscript. One of them appears to be quite content with the changes made. He still points out some important issues, but rates them "minor" so it should not be too difficult to address these points. The other referee still recommends rejection of the paper, but once again is quite detailed and constructive in his criticism. It is certainly substance behind it, and it is not one of those empty rejection recommendations that a handling editor can easily ignore.

At this point, the editorial decision is difficult. I suggest that you carefully study both reviews and amend the paper accordingly. Besides revisions to the manuscript, I feel that the authors' response will be extremely important in this case: please try to carefully and convincingly argue your case against the rejection recommendation made by referee #2. Ideally, this will convince the reviewer to change his recommendation, and if not, it may help me or a senior editor I may consult to come to a positive publication decision.

Best regards and good success with the revisions,
Marc

Dear Thomas and co-authors,

the revisions you made to the manuscript and response to the review comments have remedied the most substantial concerns of the critical referee #2 who now recommends to publish the paper "as is".

Following this recommendation, I accept your manuscript for publication in ACP.

Thanks again for the efforts you put into improving the paper and trying to respond to the reviewers' criticism.

Best regards,
Marc