Although the authors have addressed the comments raised by the two
reviewers, I believe the terminology used may have caused some confusion
during the review process.

In my opinion there are still several major issues the paper needs to address
before it can be considered suitable for publication in GMD.

I have given a Topical Editor review where I explain exactly what these
issues are -- and together they constitute more than just minor revisions.

I am willing to consider whether the paper is suitable for publication after
the authors have been given the opportunity to better explain their methods.

And it is for this reason that I choose "Reconsider after major revisions".

That topical editor review is given in the .pdf attached.

The authors have made an extensive set of changes to the manuscript following my additional Topical Editor Review. They have addressed the vast majority of the specific comments I made and also made several organisational changes to the layout of the manuscript (e.g. more logical/better-flow-of sub-sectioning).
They have also cut the last two subsubsections (7.3.1 and 7.3.2) and associated Figures which I agree were not required for the paper and improve the accessibility of the paper to the reader.

I had only one technical correction which was re: a spelling error of the word "separate" which was written as "separate" on page 8 line 218.

I would advise the authors use spell-checker such as ispell (looks like this is LaTeX and likely linux was used as OS therefore ispell probably is available).