Dear authors,

Thanks for answering all the points raised by the referees. I invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript incorporating all the changes you suggest in your reply letters.

A few comment from my side:

Regarding the first comment by referee #1 about whether the manuscript would be better suited for GMD; I agree with your arguments and find it suited for TC.

Both referees suggests to improve the results section and you propose (as suggested) to include more figures in a revised manuscript. I agree with this approach. I am not sure I understand why you think that it is better to provide additional figures via github rather than in a suppl to the manuscript on TC?
Providing them in a suppl. would ensure the long term storage and accessibility and a closer link to the manuscript.

I agree with the referee that it would be good to add a bit more info about the model and setup to the abstract.

p15.l2 Referee #1 is asking for a short explanation of why this is expected.

In respons to some of the referee comments you provide an answer without explicitly stating that you will revise the manuscript accordingly. I assume that all points will indeed be addressed in your revised manuscript, except for those points where you specifically state that you won't.

Best regards,
Louise

Dear authors,

Referee #3 has some specific suggestions for you on how to improve the manuscript. These are fairly minor, and overall the referee is positive. It will not go out in review again but your revisions will be reviewed by me, so please respond to all the points raised and revise your manuscript accordingly.

Best regards,
Louise

Dear authors,

thanks for your reply to review, and the edits that you have made to the manuscript.

i am happy to say that your manuscript is now accepted for publication in TC.

I spotted a few typos there:
P 1, l 3: are -> is
Fig 1 caption: ERAinterim -> ERA-Interim

Best regards,
Louise