The authors have done a nice job of responding to the reviewers’ comments. However, much of the content of the response to reviewers is not included in the main manuscript. For example, the response to reviewer #1 spent quite a bit of time on why differences between the 1200 km smoothing and 250 km smoothing give similar answers. I would think that readers other than the reviewer would like to see that explanation. I have a similar response regarding Reviewer #2, general point 6 – feedbacks are important (as the authors point out), and this explanation needs to be in the manuscript. I recommend that the authors go through their responses to the reviewers and add the points that they make to the manuscript, either in the main text or in the supplement. Once this has been completed satisfactorily, I will be happy to accept this article for publication.