The manuscript (MS) provides based on analysis of public data, an assessment of current landslide movements and a projection in future climate scenarios of the Fifth IPCC assessment report.

The manuscript is well written and the topic is within the scope of the journal. In my opinion the manuscript has moderate scientific novelty. Also some points may be better discussed and framed, for instance the low correlation between displacement and rainfall, and climate change modeling.

Specific comments

• L 147: Here you state that by DoD you were able to evaluate the vertical change in elevation for landslides. But how is the procedure accurate? In other words, what happens for the areas outside the landslides? Are there changes in elevation even there? Which is their order of magnitude respect to landslide areas? More details on this should be added in my opinion to the manuscript.
• LL217-233: Here you describe the post-processing of the water table depth (WTD) data originally provided by the DK-HIP model. It is unclear if and how this post-processing might have affected your analysis, both in the historical and in the future periods. This issue should be further explored. For instance, what would have been the variations between future and control scenarios with the original data taken from the DK-HIP model? Would they be way more different of the results you presented? I am imagine that in spite of the bias in the WTD data, this assessment could be still done, as you would be comparing future and control scenarios have similar “biases”.
• LL332-333 you state that “no correlation was found between the accumulated weekly precipitation and the InSAR movement”. That is an issue of processing the data. I think that some correlation may be spotted if you consider the cumulative rainfall, i.e. by cumulating all the weekly precipitation from a starting time up to any given time. Of course a certain lag is present between cumulative rainfall and displacement as some time is needed for rainfall to infiltrate. This statement and the related discussion (cf. LL386-391) needs to be revised with a more sound interpretation of the analyses.
• LL415-420 This statement is quite daring. I would be more cautious about this extrapolation of current behavior for the future.
• Section 3.3 It is unclear how climate model data were used within DK-HIP. As far as I understand you just took that data provided by the public service and made some analyses of changes. It this is correct, I think that presenting just an exploratory analysis of model data available from other authors is quite limited in terms of novelty for a research paper. Please explain.
• The discussion section presents various conceptual repetitions

Technical corrections

L71 correct “dynmaic".

L221 we first normalize -> we have first normalized.

Fig. 6 I would suggest showing the scatter plots instead of only the Spearman correlation values; this would give a clearer insight of what’s going on.

Dear Editors and Authors,

I had the pleasure to review the manuscript titled “Assessing the impact of climate change to landslides using public data, a case study from Vejle, Denmark”. The manuscript is well structured and well-illustrated and addresses the natural hazard of coastal landslides. It describes three such coastal landslides in Denmark and uses publicly available data sources (in Denmark) to assess the driving factors. The study finds that the water table depth is the main controlling factor of slope destabilization, and that short-term precipitation doesn’t have a direct correlation with the motion of these landslides. In a final part, the development of the water table depth for the last decades of the 21^st century is calculated based on RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 climate scenarion. The manuscript highlights the importance of ground water table thresholds for coastal landslide motion and finds that those thresholds are more likely to be breached in future climate scenarios.

The data available through the described WTD model is specific to Denmark but the presented workflow can serve as a guideline for other studies assessing similar settings. I furthermore recommend to add a paragraph in the discussion, putting the three described landslides in a broader scientific context, addressing what the findings from this study signify for coastal bluffs/landslides (with a similar geology) elsewhere.

Overall, I believe that the manuscript fulfills the journal’s scientific standards and I recommend accepting this manuscript with minor revisions.

Text specific comments and corrections are added to the attached, revised pdf file of the manuscript.

Sincerely,

Daniel Ben-Yehoshua