After reviewing the manuscript, review comments and author responses, I would encourage the authors to incorporate the changes indicated in their response document with some additional advice:

1) If the larger ensemble of projections are already published and referenced (which it appears from the manuscript that they are), it is not necessary to add a supplemental file with these results to this manuscript. It appears you have already cited this report in the manuscript, but I would suggest additional emphasis that the larger ensemble is available and why this study focused on the specific projections that were selected.

2) Reviewer #1 felt the discussion was too focused on the limitations and did not provide enough novel information while Reviewer #2 felt the limitations were not stressed enough in the context of the results. My advice would be to leave the discussion section largely as it is because it does a nice job of listing the limitations of the analysis. I would add an additional section using the text from your response about the use of the Gauss filter and the implications of this filter.

The review responses were constructive and offer good advice about improvements to the manuscript. Both reviewers note the relevance of the work and its appropriateness for HESS. I would like to thank the authors for their careful consideration of the review responses and for their additional analysis to address the review comments.

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your revisions to the manuscript. I agree that Figure 8 greatly adds to the scientific value of the paper and I think you have done a good job incorporating the technical comments from the reviewers.

While I believe the paper is generally technically sound, the paper needs to be a thorough review by a native English speaker before it can be accepted for final publication. There are numerous editorial changes needed related to grammar and clarification.

I also ask that you review carefully the guidelines for publication in HESS related to aspects of text and visual conventions (specifically focus on the use of a space for thousands separation in line 150):

http://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/submission/manuscript_preparation.html.

A few specific comments related to clarification are below:

1 - In the precision of describing the various climate scenarios used. For example, the scenarios should not simply be referred to as “Echam” and “Hadley” but with the term “forcing” after these words, as you have done on line 312.

2 - Be consistent with the use of “sites” versus “gaging sites” versus “gages.”

3 - In the figure descriptions, you use abbreviations that are not explained in the captions or spelled out in the legend, particularly in figures 3, 5, 6-8. I believe the figures themselves are very clear but the abbreviation in the legends are not.

4 – In Sections 3.1 and 3.2, it is not clear that you used a formal statistical test to assess the trends that are noted in these sections. You describe in the Section 2.3 that you used a linear regression to assess trends but but it is not made very clear when this test applied to the results in Section 3.1 and 3.2. In Section 3.1, because you do not mentioned that regression was applied, it appears that only a visual comparison was used to assess changes; this would not be adequate to make such conclusions about changes in floods. Be more explicit with where the trend tests were applied and how they were applied.

5 – Use +/- instead of phrases like “between 30% increase and 30% decrease”. See lines 240 and 251 as examples.

I think this paper, as the reviewers note, is a great contribution to HESS – even more so with the addition of Figure 8 - and I am certain the paper can be accepted once it is revised for these editorial and grammatical considerations.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about these comments.