We thank the reviewer for their careful reading of the manuscript and constructive comments.

Title: I would suggest adding “…Communicating long-term changes…” to better address the content of the manuscript.

We agree with the reviewer and will add ‘long-term’ to the title.

The GC Insights format indicates that “[…] any conclusions should also be evident from the Title and Abstract”, thus I would suggest adding to the abstract a sentence clearly dedicated to the conclusions of the work.

We agree and have revised the abstract slightly: 

Directly linking greenhouse gas emissions or global warming to experiences of local climatic changes or extreme events is a potentially important communication tool. We develop a physically plausible ‘causal chain’ to demonstrate the connections between global carbon dioxide emissions and real-life events. Using a case study approach based on observations, we highlight how increases in local flood risk could be communicated and linked to global climatic changes.

Line 16: “potentially less relevant” might be misleading. The link between human activities and warming climate might be difficult to communicate to certain audiences, but still (could) be relevant also to individuals. So, I would suggest rewriting this sentence.

We think the use of ‘potentially’ is a strong enough caveat, but the sentence has been tweaked:

This type of global assessment is critical for those needing to make decisions on mitigating against the risks of ongoing climatic changes but is potentially less relevant when communicating to individuals about how climate change may directly affect them.

Line 49: even though the “[…] observed increase in UK rainfall intensity […] is larger in winter than in summer” is not shown in Figure1, a reference is still needed in the text.

The index used is a common one, but has not been shown for winter and summer separately before, as far as we are aware, so no citation is possible.

Line 94-95: authors clearly refer to the “simple connections” between global dioxide emissions, increases in global average temperature and severe impacts on people. However, it might be useful to underline more the importance of “talking through the links” when using the approach described in the paper, to avoid an over-simplification of the physical processes.

We have added the word ‘communication’ before ‘tool’ on L95 to emphasise the talking aspect.

We thank the reviewer for their careful reading of the manuscript and constructive comments.

Title: While the paper discusses in some parts other (anthropogenic, non-climatic) aspects that lead to changes in climate risk (a compound of hazard, vulnerability and exposure) and justifies why the used river basin is less susceptible to such, I was wondering if it would be beneficial to change the word “risk” with “hazard” in the title.

We agree that most of the discussion refers to the hazard component. However we consider that ‘risk’ is a more appropriate word for communication purposes, which is the primary aim of this study.

We have added the following sentence at the end of the paragraph starting on L26:

Although we are using the general term ‘risk’ for communication purposes, we mainly focus on the hazard component; changes in exposure and vulnerability are also relevant, but are not emphasised here.

We have also added additional text to one sentence in the paragraph starting on L80:

The complexities can include the role of antecedent conditions and evaporation, catchment storage in groundwater or soils that could dampen extreme rainfall increases, and direct anthropogenic modifications, such as reservoirs, river engineering, or floodplain development, which may additionally influence exposure and vulnerability.

Line 23: “changed decisions” -> “change decisions”.

Agree – this will be changed.