Please see the "Final Editor's comment". Proofreading of the new version would be necessary. Good luck with the revision.

Please address all comments by referees. I have a concern, that the added and modified text in the manuscript would be difficult to understand for the readers. Please see the attached file.

We are one step before the publication.
Still, after two rounds, there are comments of the referee - please address them carefully.
Additionally: there are still pieces of text which are not formulated well...
E.g. on line 2 of the Abstract:
"Uncertainty that evaluates the difference".
Uncertainty cannot evaluate the difference. Perhaps you wanted to say this:
"Uncertainty metircs based on the difference".

Ot in Conclusion:
"Using the classic metrics, in most regions, the GCMs have been indicated as having the largest model uncertainty."
I think it is better to formulate this as follows:
"Using the classic metrics, in most regions, uncertainty of GCMs have been found to be the largest."

Please check the text again - you may foind more examples like this. Perhaps you could ask the second author, with a lot experience in publishing, to carefully read the manuscript...

Thank you for submitting this interesting paper to HESS.