Dear authors,


Thank you very for having replied to the author comments. Congratulations on having received such positive reviews, and it seems that you will be able to address all of the outstanding comments in the revised version. I would therefore like to ask you to provide an updated version of the final text, which I will read carefully and perhaps come up with some editorial suggestions. The text will however no longer be sent for review.

Dear Yannick,

I finally had a chance to read carefully your manuscript, and it appears clearly that you have taken great care of the writing of the manuscript and creation of figures. The manuscript reads very well, sentences are carefully constructed and easy to read even for a non-specialist of fires, as me. I have to say no comment, except perhaps one or two technicalities and a few clarifications required on scientific aspects:

- ESD will appreciate doi,s of references, both in the main manuscript and in the supplementary material.
- I am unsure of the "n.d." convention for papers which do not have a date, yet, but the publishing office will take care of that anyway.
- Equation (1) is the one that triggered some scientific comments of mine. As you say that you use a Monte-Carlo technique, you must take care of the stochastic variance of the parameters. In which case you must be using a kind of Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, which actually requires a _likelihood_ function (not just a cost function). Can you clarify ?

- page 8 line 21 : extra parentheses around Bush 2001
- Figure 3 : "indicate variability from 8 climate models" : I have some difficulties here. Isnt't it rather "uncertainty" (using the inter-model spread as a measure of uncertainty, which is standard practice tough not free of questions), and in that case what is the relevance of speaking in terms of percentiles when there are only 8 samples? Please clarify.