Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of the manuscript “Assessing internal changes in the future structure of Dry-Hot compound events. The case of the Pyrenees”. The authors had put in considerable effort in addressing most of the aspects raised by the three reviewers, particularly in terms of the regionalization procedure, the event definition, and the multivariate bias correction. During the review process the authors have also found that they were estimating D, E and EM events in Figs. 3 and 4 for the full period 1981-2015 and not annually, and hence, only Figure 1 has not been changed from the originally submitted manuscript. In addition, the authors have added to the revised manuscript a new figure (revised version Figure 5), that was not requested by any of the reviewers, but it is my view that providing an illustration of the large-scale drivers of the compound event in analysis is an added value to the manuscript and that it supports the results. In general, I consider that most of the reviewers’ comments were addressed and that the key necessary changes were performed to the manuscript, greatly improving its original version. However, I still have minor comments to make, which I outline with more detail below, and I leave the decision on these final suggestions to the journal editor, if I may.
Figure 2 - In the reply to my suggestion to improve Figure 2 with an illustration of an observational year, the authors considered that the scheme is enough to illustrate the procedure. However, I still think that it was a common point to all the reviewer’s comments that the definition of the event required clarification. In addition, as an answer to a Reviewer’s comment the authors have exemplified with the particular year 1981 of the grid cell i,j, where there were 2 dry spells accounting for 15 and 20 days, respectively. In this way, we agree that the exemplification with an observational year helps to better understand the procedure, and this would be a good way to improve Figure 2 and the clarification of the event definition.
The authors could also mention that they performed a sensitivity analysis using the threshold 90th, and briefly outline the main differences in the analysis using a slightly lower threshold.
P2 L43 - I’m afraid the authors have misunderstood my suggestion to include a short introduction in one sentence to the definition proposed by Manning et al (2019), as this work is an extension of the definition proposed by Manning et al (2019). I was not suggesting to just removing the parenthesis to the reference, but to guide better the reader of the introduction that the magnitude of a Dry-Hot event concerns the temperature and that the duration of a Dry-Hot concerns the length of the dry spell, as proposed by Manning et al (2019). This is not an obvious definition, in my point of view, and when reading the introduction for the first time the concept could be better addressed.
Moving averages and future periods - I suggested the authors to explain the use of a 7-year moving average and the authors changed for 5-year moving year average without explaining. The authors could mention that in addition to the 5-year moving year average, they also used a 7-year moving average, and which were the main differences, if any.
Moreover, the authors have changed the analyzed future period from 2011-2100 to 2006-2100 without mentioned it in the review, and the three periods changed from (2011-2040, 2041-2070 and 2071-2100) to (2016-2035, 2046-2065 and 2081-2100). This should be stated clearer. The new future periods have now 19 years each (instead of 29 as before), and I think that the correct period to include in the abstract L13 is 2016-2100 instead of 2006-2100.