Dear authors,

your manuscript has been reviewed for a second time by one of the referees of the first version, and it is acknowledged that the manuscript has been strongly improved and most of the points have been addressed satisfactorily. The referee still comes up with a number of points that require additional revisions. The referee comment is quite concrete and give constructive suggestions of how to take the concerns into account, also keeping in mind the scope of your paper.

The first point is the most critical. The referee does not agree with some of the additional argumentation that was brought up in your first rebuttal and the associated changes. An important question is whether the choice of parameters is "superior" to other choices for various reasons as you argue, but the referee does not agree with the argumentation. I would ask you to carefully consider these points and take them into account.
The second and third concerns deal more with stating clearly the assumptions made in the approach that is used the paper, and the referee has suggested how to address these points rather specifically.

Best regards
Thomas Röckmann

Dear authors,
I am glad to inform you that you have adequately addressed the second set of comments from the referee and adjusted the text accordingly. I accept the paper in this form for publication in ACP. You will be informed about the further procedure automatically by the electronic editorial office.
Sincerely
Thomas Röckmann