A very good paper with many intersting results. I only have minor comments largely focussed on giving more quantification of performance:

Fig. 4. Give R^2  and p-value

Fig 6. and 7.  Showing/selecting  individual years is only illustrative. The authors should give a metric of overall performance.

Fig. 9. Give RMSE of predicted mean count vs observed.

Regarding both the  scaling and the genesis probability it  would be useful to understand how relatively important the individual terms are. Genesis indices are notorioulsy poor at describing the interannual variation and it seems the authors are presenting a new  genesis index.  I would be partcicularly interested in the monthly shear. The synoptic shear is important , but it is not obvious to me that the monthly mean anomalies  capture the synoptic variability.

l.294 Perhaps a reference to the crucial role of steering for landfall risk : https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asl.101

Sec 3.2. No mention of CESM biases, so the added value of the longer runs may be ambiguous ?

All Equations should be numbered.

Dear authors,

Congratulations on building such a model and having it perform so well! I enjoyed reading your manuscript, it reads very well and I only have a couple of very minor comments, see below. 

-- Reviewed by Dr. Nadia Bloemendaal (and, as I need to disclose whether someone helped me: my 2-year old daughter who has been sitting and coloring beside me ;-)) 

• Please add numbers to the equations
• Line 156: Which intensity metric did you take from IBTrACS – and if you took Vmax: did you also correct for the fact that different ocean basins in IBTrACS have different wind recording standards (in case you took the WMO_WIND variable)? See IBTrACS documentation for more information on this: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-07/IBTrACS_v04_column_documentation.pdf
• It is not clear why the equation on line 261 is the way it is – what determined to square the probability of the wind shear?
• Line 270: I think you misspelled my last name, it’s Bloemendaal (and not the German equivalent 😉)
• Line 324: Can you briefly explain these methods?
• Line 372 – 376: Can you comment on how well this ensemble product performs in simulating the climate? Is there an ENSO bias present in this model that could potentially affect your outcomes? (i.e. see Seager et al., 2019 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0505-x )
• Could you also model natural variability like the MJO?
• Line 528: while I understand it can be hard to calculate the return period of the most extreme event in a 44-year period, and that you therefore decided to place it at the 44-yr return period, I do think it’s good to acknowledge that these events realistically do not have a 44-year return period but likely a way higher return period. You do somewhat say this by saying “Quantifying the severity of rare extreme events from such a shore record of observation years is an obvious issue” but I would be a bit more explicit here.
• Figure 13, caption: I would mention the 100km radius in the caption as well, not just in the running text
• Is the model going to be open-access or can (parts of) the code be accessed anywhere? I couldn't find anything on this in the text but I might have overlooked it.