See comment in interactive discussion

Dear authors,

Thanks for carefully taking into account the suggestions of the reviewers.
I think the paper is suitable for publication. However, please still consider this suggestion of one of the reviewers, which I paste below:

I am satisfied with the changes by the authors and think the paper is much improved. In my opinion the new section which analyzes the different contributions of the various LSMs/GCMs/LCCs to total uncertainty in ET and runoff projections (section 4.3 + new Figure 14) is the most interesting and transferable part of the study. I recommend that the abstract be revised to better summarize the big picture findings of this work rather than focus on the numerical results, i.e. include more from the synthesis and discussion section, and less from the pure results section. In my opinion the findings of the differences in relative uncertainties of LSM/GCM/LCC by process and by region are very interesting and deserve to be included in the abstract. Thus my recommendation is to accept the paper, subject to minor revisions to the abstract.