The study presents a new downscaling method to estimate regional precipitation at high spatial resolution from large-scale, lower resolution precipitation and wind fields. This methodology can be applied to estimate future climate changes at regional and local scales in regions with complex topography, using simulated changes from low-resolution global climate models.

Recommendation: I found the idea interesting, the manuscript is generally well written, and the study seems to be technically well conducted. I have some general suggestions for the authors to address in a revised version. The qualification of the required revisions (major or minor) depends on the outcome of my first comment.

1) The main idea that local precipitation is mainly driven by the amount of large-scale precipitation and the direction of wind relative to the topography seems to be applicable only for large-scale precipitation, but certainly not so for convective precipitation. The area where the methodology is being tested, Switzerland, experiences both types of precipitation, mainly depending on the season. The analysis of the method's skill is not seasonally stratified, so my concern is whether this skill is primarily derived from winter-time large-scale frontal precipitation. I think a seasonal stratification of the skill needs to be included and possibly discussed if there are seasonal differences. If they are, would the methodology need to include other fields, such as near-surface air temperature or air column stability, to account for convection?

This is my primary concern. If there are indeed seasonal differences, the manuscript would need major revisions. If not, the required modifications are, in my view, minor.

2) Regarding the manuscript itself, the paragraphs are really long. This could be improved to help the reader discern the chain of thought and to better locate paragraphs in a second reading. For instance, the introduction contains just one long paragraph (!), but this problem is also present in other sections. As a broad rule of thumb, a paragraph should be devoted to developing only one idea/message.

3) Regarding the data description, did the data present gaps? Were they somehow filled? The precipitation data were aggregated to monthly sums. If gaps were present, were those months proportionally rescaled?

4) 'using a first order conservative remapping from the Climate Data Operator package'

The CDO package offers several remapping options. I guess that in this case, the proper way to coarsen the data is to calculate the average of the high-resolution data within the low-resolution cells and not by interpolation. Was the coarsening conducted so?

5) 'On a global scale, the algorithm...'

Global scale sounds strange here. The authors probably mean the regional average.