Dear authors,
two reviewers have given supportive and constructive feedback to your manuscript. They find the work is novel, mostly well written and of interest to the readership of HESS. They also gave some feedback for improvement.

You have responded to both of the reviewers comments in detail already and have addressed most of their concerns in the response. Please implement the changes as proposed, and also see one more comment below. Please submit a step by step response and a document with changes highlighted along with the new manuscript.

Thank you and I am looking forward to the next version!
Anke Hildebrandt


Concerning the material comparing the historic climate data and the model output: I suggest that you do not repeat the content of the reference in a supplement, but add the relevant part of the information addressing the comment of reviewer 1 to the main text.

Dear authors,

thank you much for your revisions of the manuscript which have really improved the manuscript. I agree with the reviewer of this last round that the manuscript is almost ready for publication, subject to some very small amendments.

Additionally to the comments by the last reviewer, I have a couple of small requests.
L 78: Probably„models“ not „modes“ ?
Figure 6: I believe the term „Peak Frequency“ is not defined in the manuscript, which prevents interpretation of the figure. Could you add it?
Figure 7: Additionally to the comment by the reviewer, could you move the legend to the bottom right and increase the font size of the numbers? Currently it is difficult to read.

Could you please carefully read the manuscript a last time. There are a couple of typos / gaps that are probably remaining from the revision procedure.

Thank you very much and I am looking forward to the publication!

Best,
Anke Hildebrandt