Dear Taesam,

Thank you for your revised manuscript. One of the reviewers has confirmed that all of their comments have been addressed and I'm happy that the article has publication potential. However, reviewer 2 raises a number of concerns I would like to see addressed.

For GMD the novelty of the paper can stem from new tools and methods being made available to the community, however the reviewers concern that there have been a number of alternative extensions of MONR since first publication warrant formal response and consideration.

Certainly, the inclusion of additional literature and context would seem beneficial in explaining the novelty of your work and the expected benefits of your approach?

Best Regards
Jeff Neal

Dear Taesam,

Thank you for you revised manuscript. I'm very pleased to report a positive response from the reviewer and I am satisfied that all substantive concerns have been addressed. I would therefore like to accept the article for publication in GMD.

The reviewer has one remaining concern relating to the reference to climate change in the title, as they believe this is overemphasised. From my perspective, I'm happy to see the climate change aspect of your work recognised in the title, however the wording "adaptation to climate change" is very broad relative to what you have done. Along with the reviewer, I would prefer something more specific to the research that makes it clear that you are adapting the simulation model to climate change scenarios (e.g. the wording used in the conclusions). I will leave the decision with you, but one option would be to write “…occurrence and model adaption to climate change”.

Best Regards,
Jeff Neal