Dear authors,

Thank you very much for your reply. I am happy to receive your revised manuscript, with all the changes in included that you specify in the response.

Best regards,
Stefan Brönnimann

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for the revised version of the manuscript. You have responded in a satisfactory way to most of the criticism raised by the reviewers. I have only some minor comments, which I think you should incorporate in a revised manuscript.

Main comment 1 of referee #2:
I agree that the focus should be on those members that work well. However, I still think that the others simulations should be mentioned from time to time. For instance, the abstract just says "those simulations" without giving a number. At this point it would be interesting for the reader whether this was 1 or 20 members. I do not think it needs a lot of detailed analyses, but it is important to keep that selection process always in mind.

Main comment 3 of referee #2:
The figures in the revised version are still of varying quality. Those figures (Fig. 2 to 4) that were taken directly from the NOAA/ESRL plotting tools website (Figs 2-4) contrast with the other ones. I fear that coast lines will hardly be recognizable in print, and the same might hold for the contour labels.

Please send a revised manuscript.
Best regards
Stefan Brönnimnn

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for sending a revised manuscript. I am happy with your revisions and accept the paper in the present form. It is an interesting application of dynamical downscaling. Thank you for chosing Climate of the Past.

Best regards,
Stefan Brönnimann