Dear Authors,
the referees provided a number of constructive remarks on the points that should be addressed, since important clarifications are needed.
As I highlighted also in my first comments, the meteorological forcing is crucial and the main novelty in this work, so I fully agree with Ref#1 (Comment 1) that more detail is needed, in particular on the bias correction method given the coarse spatial scale of the ECHO-G model and on the downscaling procedure, if the GCM model scenarios are at monthly scale (passing from monthly, to daily, to peak values is indeed a challenging task, implying very high uncertainties as stressed by Ref#2, and both referees ask for more discussion on such uncertainty and of the limitations of the study). And also more info on the agreement between the downscaled and bias-corrected grids with the available ground measures at least for the overlapping observation period.
I invite you to submit a revised version, that I will ask to at least one referee to review again.
All the best,
Elena Toth
HESS Topical Editor

Dear Authors,
thank you for the revised version, where you have satisfactorily added the information we asked for; also the referee (the one who suggested more changes to your first submission) is satisfied with the content of the revised manuscript, but suggests to carefully revise the English.
I do apologise for the delay in the decision (the system, due to my error, expected to have two referee comments whereas I asked for only one since the other referee suggested only minor revisions).
All the best,
Elena Toth