Dear Authors,

Thanks for posting your responses to the reviewers’ comments.

The evaluation of the reviewers is generally positive and I would thus be happy to consider a revised version for publication in Climate of the Past.

The reviewers all considers that clarifications on some methodological points are required and also request some more detailed discussions on specific issues. The majority of your suggestions to take those comments into account goes in the right direction for me. Nevertheless, it will be necessary to see the modified text, which will be send back to the reviewers, for a complete evaluation. At this stage, I would still like to mention that I agree with Reviewers 1 and 3 that section 5.4 can be reduced or suppressed as its link with the main topic of the paper is relatively weak. I also consider that the answer to the comment of reviewer 2 on ‘P. 12, l. 1-8’ is a bit short and it would be needed at least to include a longer discussion of the implications of those results in the manuscript or to relate the cited numbers with the uncertainty of previous reconstructions.

Sincerely,

Hugues Goosse

Dear Authors,
The revised version of your manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers of the first phase. They both consider that the manuscript is significantly improved and nearly ready for publication.
One Reviewer still considers that some small but important changes are required before publication so I invite you to answer those comments and submit a revised version that will not go back to the reviewers but I will review myself to check that those suggestions have been taken into account adequately.
Sincerely,
Hugues Goosse

Dear Authors,

Thanks for submitting your revised version and for taking into account the comments of the Referees.

I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication in Climate of the Past.

Best regards.

Hugues Goosse