Dear authors,

Two reviewers have evaluated your revised manuscript, and both acknowledge that the revised version has taken into account their initial concerns, and is almost suitable for publication, after considering their minor suggestions.

Please send me a final revised manuscript in track change mode and an answer to their minor comments.

Sincerely, Valérie.

Dear authors,

Thank you for taking into consideration the suggestions raised by the two reviewers.

I just have one final concern, which is related to the comparison of recent changes to the MCA anomaly.

Please note that in the chapter 5 of the IPCC AR5 report (Masson-Delmotte et al, 2013), this comparison (at the hemispheric scale) was performed by considering 30 year time periods or 50 year time periods, and then the average temperature change was compared to that of the most recent 30 or 50 year time period (1963-2012 or 1983-2012) (see table 5.4).

One point that is not clear in your manuscript is the following : did you compare the average values for the whole multi-centennial MCA and the last 50 years, or did you follow the same approach as in the IPCC chapter 5?

It would be valuable to perform a comparison with running 50 year averages and running 30year averages, and also report the periods when temperature was above or below the averge value of the last 50 or 30 years.

I also have one comment. We have recently published a new multi proxy reconstruction of the winter NAO (Ortega et al, Nature, 2015) spanning the last 1000 years. Could it be possible to investigate the relationship (if any) between your dataset and that reconstruction?

These two points may be included in the revised final version.

All the best, Valérie.

Dear Authors,

Thank you for taking into account the suggestions raised during the review process. I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in Climate of the Past. Thank you for choosing this journal. Sincerely, Valérie Masson-Delmotte.