Dear authors

I agree with the reviewers and I clearly see two major issues which you need to take seriously:
i) Shorten the paper and focus more on the key-message. Which figures can be deleted from the current manuscript? I think it should be possible to reduce the number of figures to around six. Based on your comments, e.g. that you try to move relevant Mediterranean climate information to the introduction is not enough. There should be a better focus on your main key-message.
ii) Comparison to other renanalysis data: I think it is crucial to show how dependent your results are to the choices made of input data. So I encourage the authors to do a robust analyses as requested by Ref1/Ref2 on higher resolution. A discussion on this is not enough, as we want to be sure if the teleconnections and local feedbacks are not caused by data you have used.

I realize that this will take extra time, for both the restructuring as well as the extra analyses, but they are both necessarily.

Kind Regards,
Stefan

Editors comment on Changes in the future summer Mediterranean climate: contribution of teleconnections and local factors.

by Monika J. Barcikowska et al.

Dear authors,

Unfortunately, the paper still needs to have major revisions before it can be considered for publication. Although the points of the reviewers are answered, the paper now has some serious problems in length, focus and structure. Therefore first major revisions are needed on:

1) Focus
The main message of your paper is still not clear. For instance reading the abstract then it shows that you found less radical changes compared to CMIP5, but in the abstract you also highlight maximum warming and drying areas.

Then reading the introduction, then apparently you like to answer the points raised at P2, L13-16. And then also P2, L 32-33, but ending with no clear hypothesis or aim in P3. I would expect something like:
Why is it that CMIP5 is not showing consistency with data
Or
What kind of mechanisms are you testing with CM2.5 to support literature?
Or
…
Please rewrite the introduction and abstract in such a way that it becomes clear what you want to achieve with this paper. What is the aim, and is it then logic that the results support that aim.

2) Length
Due to unclarity in focus, I am not convinced that all 12 figures are essential. Further I count around 13000 words, which is very lengthy. Reason for this is the mix of subquestions you want to address and the problems with structure which moves from method-result-discussion several times.

3) Structure:
For instance, in 3.2: First this is an introduction, then you add methods, and then 3.2.1 you already have a discussion (pg L10-11)
Discussion is also found in 3.2.2 (Pg 10 L21-46), in 3.3 pg 11, L 27-46

With this structure it is very difficult to understand which results you have found, which methods you have used and which part is really discussion. So please change the structure to a ‘normal’ paper with separated methodology, result and discussion chapter.

With this new structure I can ask the reviewers if they agree with the points they have raised.

I can understand this is not what you hoped for, and hope that the more senior co-authors can help you in rewriting the paper. If you have questions, please let me know.

Kind regards
Stefan Dekker

Dear authors,

I’m very sorry again. Although I clearly see some improvements, I still have problems with chapter 3 and 4. On one hand some paragraphs are solely results while others are a mix of results and discussion.

As far as I can see it, you don’t like to separate your results from your discussion, but then every section should have a discussion paragraph by comparing your findings with the ones from literature. Now it is not consistent, some paragraphs do have discussions while other not. Either you change it consistently by having chapter 3 and chapter 4 both results and discussion. Then also the discussion from chapter 5 should be included in (mainly) chapter 4. Or you have a clear result chapter and a clear discussion chapter.

If you like to combine results and discussions then:

• Paragraph 3.1: There is no comparison with existing model runs on the simulated summer mean climate
• Paragraph 3.2: Pg 7, L16-14: this is method and should be part of chapter 2
• Paragraph 3.3: Pg 9,:4-10: again this is mainly method. Parts maybe can be used for discussion
• Paragraph 4.2 and 4.3: There is no discussion on this? But there is in chapter 5 discussion on SNAO. Please add this to the subsequent paragraphs.

Captions
• Add that for Fig1c,d downward motion is positive
• Add that For NCEP-DOE2 (fig 1a, fig 1c) average observational data is used in the period 1979-2017 and that for CM2.5 CRTL (fig 1b, fig 1d) average data between years 101-1000 are used
• General comment on Captions above the figures: these are not consistent. Its called ncep in Fig1 and Ncep-doe2 1979-2017 in Figure 2. Also CM2.5 in Figure 1, and CM2.5 CTRl in Figure 2.

Notes from Barcikowska et al. 2019

Congratulations. The manuscript is highly improved. There are only a number of minor comments. I think you can add them quite quickly:

1) As often found, temperature fields are wrong, then also precipitation fields. You also hint sometimes on this. Can you say something about this in your discussion? Which regions do show this strong correlation and which regions not.

2) Minor: pg1, L46: add abbreviation NAO

3) Minor: pg2, L2: add sea level pressure (SLP)

4) Pg2, L33: agirultural activies: which parts do you mean? Africa? As your land-atmosphere feedback is important then agricultural activities with irrigation will becoming more and more important. Can you say something how this is added in the current land models and if it is important?

5) P2, L43: positive bias. A bias in what? Temperature or Precip?

6) P2, L46: non-linear warming of hot-extremes: Non-linear to what? Is it that you find not a normal distribution? Or something else?

7) P3, L6: two times also: grammar

8) P3, L21: improved land model  but especially improved land fluxes to the atmosphere ?

9) P10,L5: existing local relationships. What do you mean?

10) P11,L23: the 7 degrees, is this the average over JJA during over whole day or only over daytime?

11) P12,L3-4: the changes in precip. Can you also give the % change?

12) P16, L37: 8 degrees: add over summer

Dear Authors

Thank you very much for your contribution. It really reads very well.

Kind regards, Stefan Dekker