Both reviewers raised major concerns regarding the description and the application of the statistical downscaling presented in the study. R#1 and R#2 pointed out major concerns with the English language and the manuscript structure. Both reviewers have also noted inconsistencies with accepted terminology that should be respected.

From my own experience, statistical downscaling in time or space or both is quite challenging if one would like to retain the spatial covariance of the downscaled fields and the auto correlation in time for a given location. We attempted this in Thober et al. (2014) Water Resour. Res. 50 (11), 8714 - 8735. From what I can understand in the manuscript, I do not how the GLM can achieve this.

Is the ESP made for every collocation? If yes, how the spatial covariance is preserved? If not please clarify in the manuscript.

In summary, I agree with the recommendations of both reviews and request the authors to implement them in the revised manuscript. The revised manuscript will be reconsider after a new round of peer review. The literature review should be also expanded and the problem carefully reframed.

L. Samaniego

REF
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014WR015930/abstract
see also references there in.

I am satisfied with the revision. It can be publish as is.
L