Dear authors,

Thank you very much for submitting the authors' comments to the reviews. Your paper was assessed by three reviewers. As you have seen, all three acknowledge that you have put a considerable amount of effort and that the work is done in a very detailed way and that the resulting series is a very helpful addition. All three see minor rather than major revisions, but they ask for additional work on homgenisation, more support or better explanations for some rather speculative issues, and strengthened conclusions. You have again put a lot of effort into a revised manuscript, which you have sent alongside your replies. Although you have responded to all reviewers' comments, there are some details which I ask you to consider in the revised version, and some for which I would like to get reviewers' advice. Note, although you have already submitted a revised version as supplement, the system will prompt you to upload a revised version.

Below are some comments on your replies (and your supplement), which I ask you to consider:
You have opted not to perform relative testing with Stockholm and Copenhagen, but you now show the Stockholm series. However, visually the correlation seems very good. Does this support your argument that changes in climate patterns could matter here? Please comment on the correlations.
Section 4.4. using the term "shift" might be misleading here as it is a trend.
Tables: add unit of the shift, perhaps mark those that were corrected in the end.
Fig. 6: Explain the line.
All figures: Remove bounding box.
Conclusions: A quick reader might conclude that the corrections can be applied to the daily scale. Please clarify, as the reviewers also repeatedly were asking you to consider the daily time scale.

Many thanks for considering Climate of the Past

Best regards,
Stefan Brönnimann

Dear authors,

I have consulted one of the reviewers again concerning the Bergen data. It seems that the monthly temperature series of Bergen (actually a blend of different series, made by B.J. Birkeland back in 1928 (http://www.ngfweb.no/docs/NGF_GP_Vol05_no8.pdf) is a widely used series (http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ta1317.dat).
In the same paper by Birkeland there is also another series from Ullensvang (pag. 20) that is even closer to Oslo and has nearly complete data for 1816-1840 (Birkeland used this series to complete the Bergen's one).
It would be nice to use these data (at least adding it to Fig. 12), in particular to have more clues about a possible inhomogeneity in 1819.

Best regards,
Stefan Brönnimann

Dear authors,

Many thanks for your explanations. The manuscript can now be published. It constitutes an important contribution to our growing body of early instrumental measurements and the history of our field.

Best regards,
Stefan Brönnimann