Dear Author,

I received the second round of reviews for your manuscript and both reviewers indeed agree that it is now very much improved, asking only for minor corrections. Could you please submit an updated version taking into account the referee's comments, i.e. the ones below and the ones in the attached pdf file?

With best regards,
Sophie Valcke

- page 3, line 6 : I doubt tropical cyclone are simulated accurately at a 40-km resolution. Some particular aspects of TCs could be. Could you be more specific?
- page 13, line 30 : I think the HighResMIP protocol does encourage to keep the same time step and several models which followed the protocol did so.

Dear Author,

Thank you very much for your updated manuscript that answers very well the second round of reviews. I just have the following two comments that I would ask you to consider before publication.

1) The phrasing of the paragraph you propose to answer RC1-2 sounds a bit odd to me. I propose to simplify it with “Beside the resolution, HighResMIP requires that the model parameters and configuration be the same between the standard and high-resolution runs. However, adapting the time step to the horizontal resolution, as we have done, is a common approach, mainly for numerical stability reasons. Therefore,we highlighted here the impact of both the horizontal and temporal resolutions on the global mean climate in the NICAM simulations.”
2) In the text modified to answer R2-11, i.e. “NICAM.16 is not fully coupled with ocean, and the DECK and CMIP historical simulations (Eyring et al., 2016) were not presented in this study.” I propose to remove the word “fully” (as it may suggest that it is partly coupled with an ocean), change “ocean” for “an ocean model”, and change “were” for “are”.

With best regards,
Sophie Valcke

Dear Author,

Thank you for this last revision of your manuscript. I think it is now ready for publication.
With best regards,
Sophie Valcke