I would like to thank the authors for carefully considering the comments raised by the reviewers.

I have a few minor coments :

- p 7, l 12 : repeated rather than repeat

- the text describing snow accumulation excess is not easy to follow given that this variable is not displayed. I suggest to show the periods of large positive or negative I on panel 4.

- The text page 12 is not easy to follow as the authors describe the cumulative accumulation change (I) and then go back to the comparison of a with d18O. It would be nice to expand this comparison, which is a request of both reviewers. I suggest to report the slope (not only the correlation coefficient). I also expect that the temporal variability of 18O is not a simple temperature proxy, so that the correlation between a and d18O cannot be purely discussed in terms of thermodynamics vs dynamical controls. This could be rewritten.

- I also expect to compare the periods with large I signals with the corresponding average d18O anomalies : do you observe parallel variations or not? The record of Delmotte of DSS deuterium excess showed a quite sharp anomaly in the 970s. Does it correspond with an accumulation change?

- I also suggest to expand the discussion to include also a discussion of the power spectrum of DSS d18O and the similarities or differences with the power spectrum of accumulation.

- Finally it would be useful to discuss the periods with large I changes with the SAM changes from the reconstruction of Abram et al (2014).

- In the discussion of spatial patterns, the reanalyses and atmospheric model only capture <50% of variance of the data from Law Dome. Is there any study that would help to quantify the signal to noise ratio in accumulation records near Law Dome, based on the comparison of multiple shallow ice core data?

- The authors do not place accumulation data of the last decades in a broader context, while their record allows them to make this analysis.It seems to me that recent decadal or multi-decadal trends are not unusual in a multi-centennial context. This could be mentioned in the abstract and main text.

- The conclusion could be expanded to discuss perspectives of further work, expanding on points which were provided in response to suggestions of reviewers.

- Minor comment : change parenthesis for reference, line 20.

Dear Dr Roberts,

I thank you for your carefull revision, taking into account my earlier suggestions. I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in Climate of the Past. Thank you for chosing our journal.

Sincerely, Valerie.