The reviewers both pointed out that the initial version lacks physical interpretation of the results. The authors have provided further analysis, to be further reviewed prior to publication

The authors have addressed most of the reviewers comments, but based on the re-review of initial reviewer 2 (now reviewer 1) and my own reading and going over the response to initial reviewer 1's concerns , some additional points need to be addressed.
Specifically, please address and justify the choice of zonal range for the averaging done in figures 3, 11, A1.
I agree with the reviewer that reducing the number of plots will make the paper easier to follow. Specifically, please consider plotting the sector mean averages alongside the 2-D fields and also maybe marking the averaging region.

I also found a few points that are confusing that need to be addressed:
1) Figure 6 is not realy described in the text, and the comment on line 267 which initially I thought were meant to refer to figures 6 and 7, becasue figure 6 shows the circulation, but it is also showing the smaller domain.

2) I am confused by the explanations of the different cancellations of the moisture flux terms between the stationary eddies and the zonal mean moisture advection by the zonally varying flow, as described for example in the response file on page 5 at the top (first full [paragraph starting on line 5).
Figure 7 in the manuscript suggests the meridional gradients of the zonally symmetric and zonally varying moisture fields are oppositely signed so the same zonally varying moistions will have opposing meridional advections, which is one cancellation. It is much more confusing to understand this cancellation if we look at the divergence (vertical velocity) where what matters is the sign of the moisture component. Actually, the two terms, divergence times the zonal mean moisture and divergence times the moisture zonal anomaly will only cancel where the zonal moisture anomaly is negative, because the zonal mean moisture has to be positive. The total flux term is teh sum of the advection and the divergence, as you rightly noted, but the physical explanation of the cancelation is done while mixing the advection, the divergence and the total flux terms together.

3) I do not understand the sentence starting on line 310: "In particular..." How can anomalous descent lead to a moisture flux convergence, unless it is convergence in regions adjacent to the descent. Or do you mean that the divergence in a dry region enhances the initial moisture anomaly ?

4) Response to the comment about the local Hadley cell paper by Li et al- I think what the reviewer meant is that the Hadley cell descent mechanism often invoked for the Med. being a dry region (along with the Hadley cell expansion being a main cause for future drying) is according to your results not the leading explanation, because the stationary waves are much more dominant than teh zonal mean overturning term. However, if you take a more lax definition of the Hadley circulation as the overturning divergent circulation, then can you say that the Hadley circulation descent is a leading drying process for the Mediterranean? It is possible to discuss this qualitatively, by simply looking at the Li et al papers or the papers they reference to see if the Mediterranean is indeed a mean ascent region in the annual mean, and then in the solstice seasons. Making this quantitative requires I think dividing the fluxes into rotational and divergent, and maybe regressing on the regional Hadley cell, and I agree is beyond the scope of your paper.

The authors have addressed the comments by the reviewer 1 satisfactorly, however I disagree with the conclusion re the local Hadley cell interpretation.
It is great that you have calculated the irrotational overturning circulation, but my interpretation of the comparison between figures R5 to R4 is that about 66% of the downwelling center over the south eastern Mediterranean is part of the irrotational flow (the peak values are about 0.04 Pa/sec in R5 vs about 0.06 Pa/sec in figure R5).
Please correct me if I am interpreting things wrong, but if not, then I would revise the text on lines 440-444 to something like:
" Preliminary analyses we have conducted using
this framework, suggest that both the localized overturning circulation and the stationary wave associated descending motions play a role, with the contribution of the overturning circulation to the peak descent region (over Egypt) being about two thirds. In other words, even if a more generalized localized view of the Hadley circulation is taken into account, it does not capture all zonal asymmetries of the mean flow and their influence on the net precipitation of the Mediterranean, and stationary waves need to be taken into account. "