The authors must be commended for a great revision of their paper, taking into account all my comments and acting on it. I only have two minor suggestions and a typo. Once this is addressed, the paper should be published.
Minor comments :
1) Section 6: Fantastic results, this is a great addition to the technique to allow for a vertical variability of the Nw profile. Now the question is : why don't you consider and present this in the paper as the baseline, since it clearly outperforms the fixed-Nw version without clear downsides ? It now looks weird to present an improvement to the technique at the end, without clearly considering this is the baseline version of the technique. I know this would mean a bit of reorganization of the paper, but it would result in a better-quality paper to do this.
2) p.21, lines 10-12, can you provide numbers to back that statement about the agreement on vertically averaged Nw and R ?
3) p. 20,line 23 : " as as". Remove one "as"
Congratulations,
Alain Protat |