Dear Author,

Thank you for your revised manuscript that obviously satisfy most of the referees' comments. Could you please still consider the additional more minor remarks from Referee #2 (please see attached file)?

With very best regards,

Sophie

Dear Patrick,

Thank you very much for your revised manuscript. I consider that your revisions fully answer the referees’ second review but for the following (quite minor) points (pages and lines correspond to the manuscript in track change mode):

• P.6, l.201; To better answer the referee’s remark, maybe add “in practice” in “"Note that the impact of using SRTM90 is rather limited".

• P.8, l.257: I don’t fully understand the sentence “For each of the 1044 grid points, the vertical discretization varies spatially, and the vertical discretization is variable when the maximum altitude difference in the grid exceeds 300m. Thus, for all of the 1044 points, the minimum difference (23m) between two consecutive bands is obtained in medium mountains, for altitudes of 385m, 694m, 717m, while the maximum difference (986m) is obtained in high mountains for altitudes of 525m, 861m, 1847m, 2013m. In the end this gives a total of 3878 grid points involved in the calculations of the mountain simulation.” Could you please provide a clearer description providing simply the minimum and maximum mesh vertical extent?

• P.14, l.447: I propose to change “can be” by “could have been”?

• P.14, l.450: I propose to change "It should also be noted that improvements in the snow parameterization should also explain some of the improvement in scores (Decharme et al., 2016), but also the use of more accurate vegetation maps." with "It should also be noted that improvements in the snow parameterization, but also the use of more accurate vegetation maps, can explain some of the improvement in scores (Decharme et al., 2016)."

• P.16, l.507-508: I propose to change "...errors in the forcing data show that errors compensate ..." for "However, good results in SIM_REF are due to error compensation since ..."

• Paragraph 5.3 on the snow depth: can you clarify what the final conclusion is?

• P. 11, l.355: “in the 4D-var but also in the 3D-var”

Thank you for considering those remarks for the final version of your manuscript.

With best regards,
Sophie

Dear Patrick,

Thanks for your latest modifications. I consider your manuscript is ready for publication.
With best regards,
Sophie