Dear Victoriano,

I have read through the manuscript, the two reviews, and your responses. Your case is an interesting one from the perspective of an editor, as the referees give divergent views. However, I see very much how the alternate opinions arose: you have written an awkwardly structured manuscript with good insights on a globally important and interesting problem but from a regional viewpoint.

Both referees have given valuable commentary that would substantially improve an eventual paper. I would agree that some of the commentary by Slotnick is not tactful; however, by addressing his commentary, it will make the work much better. (Slotnick must have had a crappy thesis advisor somehow influenced by Birger Schmitz, someone from whom direct comments flow in an under-appreciated way).

I will accept the manuscript for publication pending moderate revisions that address the referee comments. I elaborate on the main revisions necessary below.

Sincerely,

Jerry

The main problems with the manuscript are that (A) it does not properly place the work into proper and larger context, and (B) it is disorganized structurally.

(A) The current Introduction, discussion and conclusion give almost zero insight to most readers. Effectively, the manuscript immediately focuses on a regional issue (the “FSU” in the Pyrenees), but one that relates to a much broader issue that is mostly omitted.

(A1) A much better Introduction would come with a broader perspective. Something like (over 2.5 double space pages):

¶1. General views concerning the hydrological cycle in times of global warming.

¶2. The PETM and why interesting in the above regard.

¶3. The Spanish sections and why a great focal area for understanding.

¶4. Current problems with the Spanish sections.

¶5. Here is what we do in this paper …

(A2) A much better discussion would arrive with an additional section discussing comparisons of the Spanish sections to other locations.

(B) The structure of the manuscript is awkward, although this somewhat relates to the above comment.

(B1) Much of the current Introduction should be merged with the current section 3 into section 2.

(B2) The section 2 “Data set and methods” should come after the background (above )not before.

(B3) Results and discussion blend across current sections 4, 5, and 6. This needs to be rewritten so as to make clear. I point out that it is not so much the writing at the sentence level, but that the basic sections do not flow together correctly.

Ultimately, you want something like:

1. Introduction
2. Background/General setting
3. Data set and Methods
4. Results
5. Discussion (regional, and then at the end, global)
6. Conclusions

While I realize very conventional, the above rearrangement will make your work shine much brighter in the end. I would like this manuscript to be a very good contribution to the special issue

Dear Victoriano,

This is a vastly improved manuscript. One might wordsmith minor items in numerous places to ease readability (e.g., commas are missing in several sentences, compound verbs are split with modifiers in several places, etc.). Nonetheless, this is a very nice contribution.

I will accept the new version for publication.

Jerry