Dear authors,
thanks a lot for the careful online-replies. As both reviewers requested minor revisions, please submit a revised version of the paper as suggested. I will then review the changes made.
Please take particular care in considering Reviewer 2's point on the aim and transferability - i.e. the question of whether anyone wouldn't have to do the same exercise to find THE specific reduced ensemble. The studies's aim and contribution to science needs to be clear and consistently phrased - and as you say in your reply - of course such a study doesn't necessarily need to target direct 'user needs'.
I am looking forward to seeing the revised version,
Regards,
Kerstin Stahl

Dear authors,

thanks for having addressed the reviewer comments. I only found two remaining issues that need attention:

From R1 response: Please limit the information on the background maps of Figure 1 to the minimum needed for geographic orientation: i.e. continental land masses, no political borders.

From R2 response: Some of the response to the raised concerns of the aims and the question of saving future analysis, which you answered in detail in the response should also find their place in the manuscript. My suggestion is to sharpen and clarify the aims/objectives of 'transferable uncertainty' more prominently in the introduction and to discuss the question of 'savings vs redo' in the discussion section.

I am confident that with these amendments, the paper will make a good contribution to the debate on model selection.

Best regards,
Kerstin Stahl

Dear authors,

thanks for making these final changes. I am confident the manuscript will have a very useful impact on this timely topic.

Best regards,
Kerstin Stahl