Dear Matthew Priestley and Jenn Catto,

thanks again for submitting your timely study to WCD and adressing all reviewer comments.
I have now received feedback from one of the two initial reviewers, the second was not available. Thus I did an own quick editorial review.

In response to R2 you have now included a brief discussion of the role of moist diabatic processes vs. baroclinicity for the most instense cyclones in results and outlook. An adequate representation of these likely requires higher resolution than provided by CMIP6 models. I therefore suggest that you briefly also discuss the caveat of only using rather coarse climate model data and the potential requirement of higher resolution data <100km (e.g. HiResMIP) for full cyclone characterisation or at least making this aspect clearer in l618-620 if you meant it there.

The manuscript is inprinciple ready to be accepted. I choose technical revisions now to give you the possibility to include this aspect in Section 4.

Kind regards
Christian Grams