Dear Dr. Krug and co-authors,
thank you for your responses to the reviewer comments. Please provide a revised version of your manuscript, including the aspects raised by the reviewers (for example, in the discussion), or making the points clearer in the text as suggested. For example, I do not see a need to actually include the Tmax analysis as graphics, but of course you may consider putting them into a supplement. With respect to the questions of reviewer 2 about the distribution, please provide a test of how well a normal distribution fits the data. This is just for the reviewer, not for the manuscript.

Thank you very much!

Best regards,
Uwe Ulbrich

Dear Prof. Krug and colleagues,
I am happy to tell you that both reviewers support the publication of your manuscript. Both point out, however, that there is room for an improvement of the abstract. Thus, I ask you to go into the abstract again in order to make the novelty of your results even clearer, so that readers will be more interested in the rest of the paper. You have performed two different kinds of analysis for a couple of German cities individually, identifying their temperature thresholds from the correlation to mortality. In addition, you computed the roles of temperature and ozone for mortality. As a result, you find regional differences which are briefly discussed. This is an interesting result which could stimulate further research. The impact of MDA8 on mortality rates at low thresholds TA in some specific cities may also be worth a sentence in the abstract.

After completion of the corrections and publication of the paper, you can freely distribute the paper (or the link to it), and I hope you get a good response from the community. Thank you for choosing NHESS for the publication of your results!
Best regards,
Uwe Ulbrich