Dear Authors,

Thank you for providing detailed responses to the comments and suggestions offered by a reviewer and myself.

I agree with the reviewer who recognized the scientific value and novelty of your manuscript. Since your responses have addressed all the raised issues and concerns, I am pleased to let you know that you can now submit your revised manuscript.

I would like to ask you to make all the changes easily identifiable in a marked-up manuscript and a point-by-point reply to the comments offered by the two reviewers and myself. Please specify the line numbers of the revised parts in your responses to the reviewer’ and my own comments.

Sincerely,

Ji-Hyung Park
Associate Editor, Biogeosciences

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your careful revision of the manuscript considering all reviewer comments and suggestions. I am pleased to let you know that your manuscript can be published after technical corrections of the following:

- Abstract (line 8): GHGs, not GHG
- Abstract (line 14): please add a comma before “respectively”.
- Table 1: In response to the first reviewer’s comment on uncertainties of estimating separate emission pathways, you have added error values in parentheses, but not described what those values mean in the table caption. Please specify the reported values in the caption.
- Table 2: Two types of error values are presented here. Don’t you need to indicate which pathways or gases have SE or 95% confidence interval?

Sincerely,

Ji-Hyung Park
Associate Editor, Biogeosciences