The reviewers appear to be generally positive about the paper but identify problems related to organization and description. I am designating "minor revisions" so the authors can address these issues.

The manuscript has improved quite a bit during the review process. I have a few additional comments that should be addressed before the manuscript is accepted for publication.

1. You need to be clearer on what you are predicting. Seasonal forecasts of what?

2. I’m unclear as to the insight you’re providing. As far as I can tell, you have three points: (A) Factorial regression works. (B) Your predicted variable, whatever it is, depends on some things. (C) Sometimes there are nonlinearities. To me, this isn’t a really compelling reason to write a paper. What have we learned that’s new?

3. There are numerous issues with language, including typos and incorrect tense. The authors use past tense quite a bit in (in my opinion) inappropriate places. I am willing to let the authors correct this in their revisions, but if they are unable to do so, I will recommend copyediting by the journal at additional publication cost.

4. I am troubled by the comment on lines 205-206. There are many regions where it’s quite clear that nonlinear interactions between the different factors are important. Choosing not to address these is a strange choice to me and has resulted in a weaker paper than what I think it could be.

5. Lines 211-212 mention ENSO forecasts. This has not been discussed anywhere previously in the manuscript. How are you able to conclude this based on your results? Is this now an ENSO paper?

Re-confirming minor revisions.