Dear Dr. Carlson and Dr. Caballero,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled " Atmospheric circulation and hydroclimate impacts of alternative warming scenarios for the Eocene” [Paper #cp-2017-17] to Climate of the Past.
I have now received an assessment by two reviewers who found moderate issues that will need to be addressed before we can finally accept the paper.
Major concerns of first reviewer were that hydroclimate and circulation proxies may be not sufficient to differentiate between the two sensitivity experiments. The second reviewer suggested to eliminate the PET-based analysis and instead focusing at the land model’s direct photosynthesis and/or leaf-area-index output to qualitatively compare to paleo-vegetation records.
The feedback to your manuscript provided by the reviewer assessments is important and should be taken into account as you complete your revision. Please include a point-by-point reply to the reviewer comments, consider the reviewers’ concerns in the revision, and submit a marked-up manuscript version showing the changes made in your revision. I encourage you to submit a suitably revised version of your manuscript, if possible, by June 30, 2017.

Sincerely,
Arne Winguth
Editor

Dear Dr. Carlson,

Thank you for addressing the comments raised by the referees in this revision. We are pleased to inform you that your revised manuscript, "Atmospheric circulation and hydroclimate impacts of alternative warming scenarios for the Eocene" [Paper #cp-2017-17], has been accepted for publication in the journal “Climate of the Past”.

Sincerely,

Arne Winguth
Editor