Dear authors:

Thank you for providing your replies to referee comments. Your manuscript received three reports, which gave positive evaluations. They considered that your manuscript has ‘good’ scientific significance and quality and presentation quality, suggesting that it can be a candidate for publication. I studied the referee comments and your responses, which are well organized into a single supplementary file. As a result of additional descriptions (e.g. sensitivity tests) and clarification of methodological limitations (e.g. use of 20 plots) in response to referees' suggestions, I found that the manuscript would become clearer and more convincing. I agree with your decision to modify the title and appreciate updating the GitHub link. I have not received additional comments on the open discussion, and conclude that your manuscript would be reconsidered after major revisions based on the discussion.

Dear authors:
Thank you for providing the revised manuscript.
I checked the annotated manuscript and confirmed that you made adequate amendments on the basis of the open discussion. The description of the sensitivity analysis was largely revised, resulting in improved clarity. Therefore, I would recommend the manuscript to be accepted for publication after technical corrections.

Technical points
- References are not described in the style given by the journal guideline.
- Characters in several figures (e.g. Figs. 2, S2, S12) look too small. Can you magnify them?