This paper provides a method to assess the relative contributions of the weather regimes frequency and intensity changes as well as of the skill of the weather regime classification to the precipitation change by the end of the century using reruns of the CESM1 Large Ensemble. The authors find that the change in frequency has a minor role except for some regimes in very specific regions. The manuscript is well written and relatively clear. My most major comment concerns Section 3 and the description of γ. All my comments can be found below in the order of the manuscript followed by some technicalities.

Introduction:

Lines 90-99: point 2 sounds like a repetition of point 1 because “quantify the relevance of WR frequency changes” is already mentioned in point 1. Therefore, point 2 could just be ‘use γ_i(Φ) on precipitation Φ=P, Φ=N_wet and Φ=N_heavy’. The details about the model used and the choice of seven regimes can come later in section 2.

Section 2.3:

Lines 144-151: the authors point out that performing the weather regime classification on the CESM simulations historical and end-of-century periods separately would lead to different weather regimes. What about the ability of CESM in representing the historical weather regimes? The authors do not mention this aspect, but it could also be a reason for using the weather regimes patterns from ERA-Interim. Have the weather regimes in CESM been studying before ? I would appreciate if the authors could add here a sentence on this topic.

Section 3:

Lines 228-264: I do not understand why the authors spend so much time describing the two ratios Δf_i/f_hist,i and ΔΦ_i/Φ*_hist,i, as written in Eq. (6), when the rest of the paper and the figures deal with Δf_i Φ*_hist,i and ΔΦ_i f_hist,i. Also, it is confusing when comparing with γ_overall, which actually uses the terms (iib) and (i) from Eq. (5). I found this part difficult to follow and confusing in light of the rest of the paper.

Line 253: “If days were randomly attributed to one of the WRs”: This sentence confused me at first because I did not which “days” the sentence referred to and “one of the WRs” made me think that only one weather regime was used here. I suggest rewriting the other way around like: ‘If each weather regime was attributed to a different random set of days within the historical period’.

Lines 277-278: Could the authors add the actual values of these thresholds and which variable is used to define those thresholds? I suspect that the authors use Fig. 2c,d to determine the threshold for Figs. 3, 4, and 5. Moreover, the percentage given here (30%) is quite vague as the reader does not know if the authors mean 30% of the grid points within the domain plotted (~30°N-90°N / ~80°W-~40°E) or within the Northern Hemisphere (or even globally).

Section 4:

Line 286: “Denmark Strait” I would rather locate the negative response over the Irminger Sea. Please check if you agree and eventually correct.

Figure 2: It would be great to also have the DJF climatology of wet days and heavy rain days as well as their response to climate change. Four more panels could be added to this figure. Moreover, how do these DJF and JJA precipitation climatologies compare to reanalyses or observation-based products? Could the authors add a sentence on this?

Line 287: “weaker positive values” I do not find them that weak. I suggest to add “slightly” before “weaker”.

Figure 3a: Why does this figure look so much like the DJF response displayed in Fig. 2c? Also, it seems that all four weather regimes presented here change in almost the same way in the future. Why is that? Somehow, I would have expected more WR-specific changes, meaning following the WR precipitation anomalies shown in Fischer (2021). Could the authors comment on that aspect? Is it expected?

Line 308: I find slightly annoying to have to look for Fischer (2021) to find the precipitation anomalies associated with the weather regimes. Would there be a way to include this information as contours on panel (a) of Fig.3 or on panel (c) since this panel is less busy than the others, for example? Or could these figures be added to a supplement?

Line 335: “weaker WR-specific anomalies”. To me it looks like the anomalies in Fig. A17 in Fischer (2021) are also strong for the other weather regimes. The zonal weather regime exhibits a strongly positive anomaly and the European Blocking a strong negative anomaly. Therefore, I suggest to modify this sentence.

Line 341: “of about 1.5 mm day^-1” This value can be found in Fischer (2021), right? If yes, please add the reference. If not, please write where I can find these values.

Technical comments:

Line 238: “how large are the fields γ_i(Φ)” → “how large are the fields γ_i(Φ)?”

Figure 2: the latitude labels are missing on all panels. The gray contours and their labels in panels (a) and (b) are quite difficult to see. Please consider using another color and to not overlay the contour on its label. Moreover, those lines are not described in the caption. I suppose they are the 500-hPa geopotential height (in m).

Figure 3: I suggest to replace the “I” by AT so that we can immediately see that this figure is about the Atlantic trough. Moreover, in panel (d), the color bar label 0.00 and longitude label 40°E are cut at the edges of the figure.

Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7: there is a slight misalignment between the left column and the other columns as visible from the color bars that are higher in the left-most column compared to the other columns.

Line 388: add a comma between “Φ” and “larger”.

Lines 426-427: the larger […] is the intensity change ΔΦ_i – and thus the smaller is γ_i → the larger […] the intensity change ΔΦ_i, the smaller γ_i

References: many references have a double slash (//) after doi.org. The doi is missing for references in lines 483, 519, 553, and 576.