Dear Authors,

Thank you for your response to reviewers' comments. In general your responses seem satisfactory to me, however, I think more needs to be done to respond to some of the major comments by both reviewers. Please see below for my comments:

(1) In response to RC1's comment #1. I'd suggest exploring the possibility of including some of the main RCMs now (e.g. WRF and RegCM4). Seems to me that the outputs from those models are now available (https://www.medcordex.eu/)?. Also more needs to be done to demonstrate that the choice of using ALADIN5.2 and ALADIN5.3 as two individual models is a fair one. Please specify in the analysis how different they are. If two of the 5 models happen to be very similar it will, of course, hinder the fair representation of uncertainty in projections.

(2) In response to RC2's comment #1, please also consider showing through an analysis, why despite the underestimation of extreme events by RCMs and SAFRAN datasets the results of this analysis are valid. Also, suggest showing uncertainty bound around the observation (i.e. SFARAN) dataset.

Thank you again and I look forward to seeing the revised version of the manuscript.

Best,
Shrad

Dear Authors,

I have now received reviews from all the original reviewers of the manuscript. They have recommended to accept the manuscript as it is. (*Reviewer #2 has suggested two minor changes, please see below). Congratulations and thank you for submitting this manuscript to HESS.

Best regards,
Shrad

Corrections suggested by reviewer #2:

Minor corrections:
1. p1/L17: past period --> historical period
2. p2/L3: General Climate Model --> Global Climate Model