|The manuscript has improved with the first revision, especially with regard to a better embedding of the results with other research on climate change impacts in Norway and also the shortening of the DDD-model description is appreciated.|
However, further improvements are required.
What I find somewhat discouraging here from the point of view of the reviewer is that many comments I made in the first PDF were simply ignored.
I will only list a few examples here and expect that if the authors get the chance to resubmit the manuscript, the comments of the first round will also be taken into account.
(1) Examples of comments from the first round of reviews not addressed by authors
On page 3, line 57. It was already commented in the previous review that this sentence is not really elegant: "Climate change adverse results upon streamflow regimes worldwide..." Better start like this: "Adverse effects of climate change on river regimes worldwide..."
There is still the sentence in the introduction (page 3, line 61): "Projected increase in the frequency and intensity of heavy localized precipitation events, based on climate models, contributes to increasing in precipitation-generated local flooding, ..."
To me, this sounds like the "projected increase of heavy localized precipitation events" itself cause an increase of local flooding in reality. Maybe it is simply the term "contributes", which is not used properly in this context.
Page 4, line 84: "Climate impact assessment on hydrology ... is challenging..." More correct or precise: "Assessing the impacts of climate change on hydrology...is callenging..." Moreover, the sentence is way too long.
(2) Description of bias correction method
page 9 (bottom) and page 10 (top): From the description, it is not clear to me how the bias correction was performed. I could only guess.
The sentence: "For the reference period the 6-hourly NorESM1-M input data were split into a monthly mean term and the deviation from this." is not clear.
First of all, the reader does not know whether the mean monthly time series is composed of twelve values, representing the 30-years mean or if it is a time series composed of 12*30 values.
I would also not use the term "split into". Explain first how the monthly mean time series was computed and then how the deviations were calculated.
The equations 1-3 are not referred to in the text and are not self-explanatory, because the variabels are not explained. Which variable represents the mean, which the deviation?
(3) Proper and / or imprecise use of English language
It seems to me that the manuscript was not corrected by a native speaker. There are still sentences, which are grammatically not entirely correct. Sometimes it is only a missing "the" ...
It seems that there is quite some redundancy between Discussion and Results and sometimes one and the same results are referred to too often.
For example: "the magnitude of the 200-year flood changees range from 16% to 43%" (page 28, line 610 and page 29, line 631). So, there is some space for improvement.
page 2, line 26: RCPs are not "emission" scenarios but"greenhouse gas concentration" scenarios. It is also used somewhere else in the text.
page 5, line 110: How can the performance of a simulation been measured if there are no observations? "Even if the DDD model predicts flow at ungauged catchments satisfactory 0.5<=Kling-Gupta Efficiency < 0.75)..."
page 6, line 137 "...dominated by rain floods..." I think, "rain flood" is not a proper term, it is either a river flood, if you want to distinguish from e.g. "coastal flood" or a flood caused by (heavy) rainfall.
page 9, line 207: Reference Bruyere et al. 2015 is not in the references. Is it Bruyere et al. 2014?
page 11, line 246: Be more specific: "catchments from small to large", what does it mean in terms of km2? "Temporal resolution from low to high", what is low what is high?
page 14: The brackets in equation 5 are in my opinion superfluous.
page 14, line 315-320: You could simply say that the 3-hourly time series were converted to annual time series instead of writing 5 lines.
page 17, lines 388f. ...temperature rises "in" <-- "by". The mean annual flow increases "from" <-- "between"
page 19, line 410: Abbreviation "CV" not introduced before usage
page 22, line 471: "moderate increase in temperature". 3 degrees increase is not moderate in my point of view, only if you compare it to other world regions, where increase in air temperature might be much higher at the end of the 21st century.
page 24, line 515: ...increase of...-9% to 17%... is it really -9%, if yes, increase would be the wrong term
page 28, line 610: You present the value of the 50-year flood by another study and compare it to the 200-year flood from your study. Why don't you refer to the 50-year flood value from your study?
page 29, line 642: "...and perhaps this is the data..." Don't you know or why are you saying "perhaps"? I recommend to reformulate this and to be more precise.
page 30, line 659: "...will be higher water available" <-- more water
page 31, line 678: "...that we are not totally off..." <-- This is colloquial language