Reply to comment by Laprise on “The added value to global model projections of climate change by dynamical downscaling: A case study over the continental U.S. using the GISS‐ModelE2 and WRF models”

In his comment, Laprise raises several points that we agree merit consideration. His primary critique is that our study [Racherla et al., 2012] tested the ability of the WRF regional climate model to reproduce historical temperature and precipitation change relative to the driving global climate model (GCM) using only a single simulation rather than an ensemble. He asserts that the observed changes are smaller than the internal variability in the climate system (i.e., not statistically significant) and that thus a single simulation should not necessarily be able to capture the observations. Laprise points out that the statistical signal is reduced for a multi-decadal trend such as the one we analyzed in comparison with mean climatology and cites two studies showing that for particular climate parameters it can take any years for a signal to be discerned over internal variability. He states that The results of theexperiment as designed were strongly influenced by the presence of internal variability and sampling errors,which masked the rather small climate changes that may have occurred as a consequence of changes inforcing during the period considered. While Laprise discusses statistics in general terms at some length, for the actual climate trends examined in our study, he offers no evidence that the forced signal was smallcompared with internal variability. The two studies he cites [de Ela et al., 2013; Maraun, 2013] do not provide convincing evidence as they concern climate variables averaged over different times and areas. One in fact examines extreme precipitation events, which by definition are rare and thus have a lower significance level. We accept the general point that it is important to consider internal variability, and as noted in our paper we agree that an ensemble of simulations is in principle an optimal, though computationally expensive, approach. While we did not present the statistical significance of the observations in our original paper, we have now evaluated those for the regional temperature trends used in our study to evaluate the added value of WRF and thus can analyze data as to the magnitude of the trends with respect to internal variability.