CO Editor

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of revised version of Revisiting the synoptic-scale predictability of severe European
winter storms using ECMWF ensemble reforecasts

The authors almost included all my suggestions and comments in a reasonable way. Still as the manuscript underwent considerable changes some mainly technical corrections remain. Despite one point is still not treated adequately. The basis of the page and line notation below is the file nhess-2017-122-author_response-version1.pdf:

P1,l11-14: This sentence is awkward, maybe the authors forgot to remove something when editing.

P1,l22-24: Concerning the statement ‘…question lies in the trends in frequency and intensity of winter storms in the current and future climate. This question is disputed due to little agreement between climate models and between identification methods (see Feser et al., 2015, for a review). However, the intensity of…’ makes no sense. How cane the question be disputed by little agreement between climate models/methods? Also the ‘However’ makes a connection between the sentences which makes no sense, so please reformulate.

P2,l25: Change throughout the text methodology to method as methodology is defined as is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study.

P2,l28: There is blank before a comma.

P3,l13: Please cite the papers for the ‘other authors’

P4l25-27: If so why not comparing then max wind at the lowest level and remove the uncertainty source of gust parameterizations.

P6,l11: Please change to ‘Neu et al. (2013) emphasized’

P7,l27 : Roberts et al. (2014) not in brackets.

P10, l20: The sentence is awkward, please clarify.

P12,L3: please change to ‘which impacts the SSI’

P12,L30-31: please change to ‘they are forecasted’

P14, L8: please change to ‘In contrast to the previous studies,’ and add references

P16,L34: Methodology -> method

P18,L16: Should -> can

P18,L23: should -> shall

References: Still some titles are capitalized other not, use the style of the journal NHESS!

Figures: Still the labels use different font sizes when comparing it to Fig 8. (See old review)

Open issue from the old review There mentioned as P11-12, section 4.3:

The authors give an answer to this comment, but have not included the purpose of the section. So I suggest to write the purpose of this section explicitly at the beginning which will help the reader to follow the results.

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion