dear authors

please revise the paper according to the suggestions of the reviewers and also provide point by point answers how you addressed the different points of the reviewers.

there are a couple of sentences that sound similar or nearly identical with the original ones.
for instance:

Pyrina et al., lines 378-379: "The decrease in variance can be expected for regression-based CFR methods that blend signal and error variances as a characteristic of formulation (e.g., von Storch et al., 2004)."

Smerdon et al., 2011 (Geophysical Research Letters): "Variance losses are expected for regression-based CFR methods that blend signal and error variances as a characteristic of formulation (e.g., von Storch et al., 2004)."

Pyrina et al., lines 379-380: "The source of a loss in variance is likely associated with the manner in which the eigenvalue spectra are truncated by the two methods (Smerdon et al., 2010)."

Smerdon et al., 2010 (Journal of Climate): "The source of variance losses is likely associated with the manner in which the eigenvalue spectra are truncated in the two methods."

please address this point as well throughout the manuscript


with my best wishes and looking forward to the revised version

Jürg

dear authors
I have now received two reviews on your revisions. They both mention that the quality of paper has been improved and the majority of points have been addressed. Both asked for clarification of a couple of points which you will find in the reviewers comments.
Can I please ask you to address those and submit a new revised version.

with my best wishes and thanks very much

Jürg

Dear authors

I am happy to accept your paper.
Looking forward to see the paper out soon.

Best wishes

Juerg