Dear Dr. Strassburg,

version 2 of your manuscript has been evaluated by the two initial reviewers. As you can read in their attached reports, reviewer # 1 is satisfied with your revisions, but reviewer #2 claims that some of their points have not been satisfactorily addressed.

The main points of disagreement are related to your new figures 2 and 3. Reviewer #2 raises the point that the correlation of the sea-level reconstruction and the satellite altimetry may be satisfactory in some of the water bodies, but for all of them. I think a reader will also be puzzle by the low correlations between the reconstruction and the satellite data in the Northwest of the region. Some of the other correlations are indeed relatively high but given that the area is relatively small, I would also have expected a better match. I think that some discussions about the possible reasons should be included. Additionally, a caveat on the validity of the conclusions of the study in those areas with lower correlation skill. This type of discussion is absent in section 4 in the present version.

I also concur with reviewer#2 that the quality of Fig 3 is not optimal. This will be anyway raised by the technical editors, so I think that we would gain time if a figure with a better quality could be included at this stage.

I would appreciate if you could submit a revised version addressing these points. Thus version will not be sent out for review again, but I will have to evaluate that the concerns of reviewer #2 have been properly addressed.

Sincerely,

Eduardo Zorita

Dear Dr. Strassburg,

Thank you very much for submitting the revised version of your manuscript to Climate of the Past, and for addressing the final points raised by reviewer #2 .
According to my own evaluation, you have satisfactory addressed these points and I am now happy to recommend the publication of your manuscript in our journal.

Best regards,

Eduardo Zorita