Dear Authors:
As you see from their comments, both Reviewers found your manuscript "very easy to read and well written" and were positively inclined as to publication. Thank you for your careful revisions and response to the Reviewers. Your manuscript certainly improved with the changes you introduced yet there are still a few items I would like to ask you to consider. If I am satisfied with your response to the comments below, your manuscript may be accepted for publication without further reviews by the Referees. With Regards
Zoltan Toth

1) As to the 1st comment of Rev. #1 about the limited (32) number of ensemble members - here I do not feel you provided a direct or particularly helpful response. I understand others in the literature used similarly small size ensembles. Perhaps you may speculate why this low number may still yield useful results? Have you checked how your method may work with fewer number of members (over a shorter time period if that helps reduce computational costs)? Do you see a saturation of impact as you approach 32 numbers? Sharing any other insight with the readers may damp related questions.

2) On your response to 3rd comment of Rev. #1, and the 3rd minor remark of Rev. #2 - Both Reviewers are asking you to qualify your results in light of the significant limitations of your study (e.g., limited number of ensemble members, low resolution of system you use, limited (one type only) set of "control" observational data). How the limitations may affect the results? You may want to reflect on these and possibly other limitations in a more concerted way, perhaps as a separate paragraph as part of your discussion, conclusions, and/or abstract, cautioning the reader against drawing too broad conclusions etc? The strengths of your method are probably well laid out already. Making the limitations of the study even clearer will only add to the value of your contribution.

Minor editorial and other comments:
p.2, l.20: "although this is technically easily solvable"

p2, l.19-21: awkward sentence, can you break it into 2 sentences?

p5, l.17: "Adding a new type of observation"

p9, l.20-22: Too long sentence, please break it up into two sentences.

p11, l.13: to lend emphasis to the point you make here, suggest this change: "reaching almost 70% under the condition that the number of precipitating members is between 5 and 13."

p12, l.1-2: "taking subsets of observations as in this example."

Response to 2nd minor remark by Rev #2: Thank you for changing the nomenclature, I had the same suggestion in mind when looking at your manuscript

Dear Authors:
Thank you for your response and revisions. I may be missing something, but looking at Fig 3 and the associated discussion, I do not see a reference whether you show moist or dry energy results in these figures? Please add this information into the figure legend and text (if missing from there, too). Other than that, your manuscript is ready for publication. Congratulations, and I hope you will consider NPG for publishing your future research results.
Zoltan Toth