Since the second anonymous referee has not produced their review on time, and is currently out of contact, I have decided to provide the second review myself. In my review I have highlighted what I think are the main points which still need to be addressed, but please consider all of the comments of the anonymous referee carefully in your revised manuscript.

It will help a lot in assessing your revisions if you could provide more detail about exactly what has been changed in your revised manuscript, clearly indicating exactly which text has been added and/or removed for each change you make.

It is difficult to determine exactly what has changed in your manuscript since the last version. In order to help me judge the changes you have made, please provide a version of the new manuscript (version 5) with all changes (additions, deletions etc.) since version 4 highlighted. I need to be able to see what has been altered since the last version of the manuscript before I can make any further decisions about this manuscript. I see that you have used Microsoft Word to prepare your manuscript, so I suggest that you use the "Compare Documents" feature of this software to produce a new version with the changes highlighted.

In my opinion you have done a good job of answering the comments of the reviewers by adding extra analysis and clarification where necessary.

There is only one comment which I think you should do a better job of answering, and this is comment #22 of reviewer #1. The reviewer has asked you not to use the term "excellent", and you have responded by putting the word in quotation marks. I understand your response, in that you wish to highlight the fact that you have created your own criteria for "excellent", "good", and "average", but I think the way you have done this will lead to more confusion. I recommend the following solution.

At the beginning of Section 5.2, please devote some text to describing each of these categories, along with the rationale for the thresholds of fractional bias and fractional error that you choose. Then, when you discuss each region, you can write something like "Based on these values of fractional bias and fractional area, we classify the performance of PMCAMx in this region as "excellent" (using the criteria given above)". Then, in the conclusions, when you describe the model performance in each region as either "excellent", "good", or "average", you can replace the contents of the following parentheses with the words "based on our own evaluation criteria". I think this will help to make it clear to the readers what you mean here.