Dear Carl,

Thank you for your response to the review comments, which appear to be quite straightforward and are supportive of publication, subject to minor revisions (that you have already indicated you will address). I would only add to these comments the suggestion that you expand only very slightly on what seems to me to be a crucial point of the paper; namely that "If the calcite values of δ18O are fully reliable, then inferred enriched values of the ratio in sea water are necessary". To many readers, in this context, the reliability of the d18Oc data (of which there is a great volume, and well replicated) will be entirely uncontroversial, which might change slightly the headline conclusion of the study from what is currently emphasised. I would propose that you might address this issue in your final revised manuscript, for example to make it more clear why one might doubt the large volume of d18Oc data, and therefore why the openness of the question regarding LGM d18Ow enrichment is emphasised as a conclusion of this study. I propose this as a suggestion merely, and not as a condition of publication.

I look forward to receiving your final revised manuscript version.

Sincerely,
luke

Dear Carl,

Thank you for your final revised manuscript version. I am pleased to say that this version will now go forward for publication in Climate of the Past.

All the very best,
luke