The author presented an important work that investigates the effect of rainfall intermittency on the scaling of rainfall extremes with temperature.

The two reviewers raised pertinent points and the author has provided responses that are reasonable.

The manuscript is well written, has the necessary scientific rigor and in my opinion, will capture the attention of ESD audience. To add to the point raised by the second reviewer on the statistical nature of the work, I would recommend the author add a brief section toward the end of the manuscript to discuss the connection to the dynamics of the climate system and how these new scaling statistics can help inform them better or help improve the climate models. The literature that the author mentioned in the response can be highlighted there. Moreover, a brief discussion on the insights of how can one handle a multivariate distribution of the triplet, and not just conditional (as shown here) will be useful.

Furthermore, it will be helpful if the standard errors of the scaling coefficients can be presented either in a tabular form or in the form of spatial maps.

While the author presented the relations for all the 99 stations using boxplots, it would be better if they are presented in maps to understand the spatial variations better. Perhaps, as discussed in section 4, the author can divide the scaling exponents under different temperature gradients and then maps the exponents.

A question that arises here is whether the difference in the scaling with and without intermittency is bracketed within the uncertainty intervals of the two estimates. If this is the case, it would be important to show where (which temperature gradient) the differences are statistically significant in terms of the difference. A simple two-sample non-parametric test on the scaling exponents may help tease out these differences. For instance, figure 4 shows that the scaling exponents are not very different for temperature less than 15 deg C for the 1 hour. Similarly, for the 24-hour case, the differences are very narrow that one could argue that they may be within the uncertainty intervals of the respective estimates. Some analysis on these thresholds for the various stations will be helpful to make the dynamical nature of the scaling clearer.

A last minor comment is that the figures have to be improved to make them presentation quality.