dear authors
your paper has now been reviewed by two reviewers. Both see the potential in your research and the interesting results.
They also clearly indicate how the paper can be improved and what additional Analysis/reconstruction exercises need to be performed.
Can I please ask you to work on a revised Version taking into account all the suggestions and improvements and explain your changes in detail, point-to-point

with my best wishes and looking forward to your revised version

J. Luterbacher

dear authors

thanks very much for your revised version. It will be reviewed again before a final decision will be made.

with my best wishes

J. Luterbacher

dear authors

I now received the review of two reviewers which find your paper of interest. The one reviewers is fine with the paper though he/she have some comments.
The 2nd one has some important issues, some of them I have mentioned before (comparison with published evidence). Can I please ask you to address the points from the reviewer and submit a re-revised Version.

looking forward to the new version

dear authors

thanks very much for the revised version taking into account the reviewers and my comments.
I have only a couple of request before I can accept the paper:
- For Figs 8 and 9 please calculate the field significance and plot the significant areas in the different plots. If needed change the corresponding text reporting only on the sign. areas.
- Figs 4 and 10, please add more text in the caption to understand what is shown. In the main text please add also a bit of text of the bias between the two lines in both figures
- Fig 6 has too think grey lines, please make this figure more clear
- Include the comparison also in the conclusion part (not summarizing, concluding)
- The new sentence in the Abstract is not clear, please revise.
Please also try to shorten the Abstract and concentrate on the major finding and the implications for your work for future work

best wishes and thanks very much and looking forward to your new Version

J. Luterbacher

dear authors

thanks very much for the updated version and sorry for the silence. The reason is, that I immediately sent comments back when you resubmitted, but I just saw some days ago, that my message did not reach you so I send the additional points again. Sorry for the delay.

Please could you address the following points:
In my review I mentioned to add stat sign. field sign. to Figs 8 and 9. You did plot areas in Fig 9 but did not explain how you calculated those.
I had in mind statistical field sign. using monte carlo techniques that are published in Livezey and Chen, 1983 Mon Weath Review,
Ventura et al. 2004, Controlling the Proportion of Falsely Rejected Hypotheses when Conducting Multiple
Tests with Climatological Data, J. Climate and
Wilks, 2006, On “Field Significance” and the False Discovery Rate, J. Applied Meteorology and Climatology.
Can I please ask you to recalculate according this technique, change the corresponding Figs 8 and 9 and also add text in the method section and possibly reconsider the main text and abstract where you refer to those figures. The text is not sufficient in the figure caption.

the changed introduction is now not consistent and logic anymore and needs to be reconsidered. There are jumps and the flow is misleading. In parts you refer to the past 2k (in fact it is not Lionello et al
but should be Luterbacher et al.
Luterbacher, J., R. García-Herrera, S. Akcer-On, R. Allan, M. C. Alvarez-Castro, G. Benito, J. Booth, U. Büntgen, N. Cagatay, D. Colombaroli, B. Davis, J. Esper, T. Felis, D. Fleitmann, D. Frank, D. Gallego, E. Garcia-Bustamante, R. Glaser, J. F. González-Rouco, H. Goosse, T. Kiefer, M. G. Macklin, S. Manning, P. Montagna, L. Newman, M. J. Power, V. Rath, P. Ribera, D. Riemann, N. Roberts, M. Sicre, S. Silenzi, W. Tinner, B. Valero-Garces, G. van der Schrier, C. Tzedakis, B. Vannière, S. Vogt, H. Wanner, J. P. Werner, G. Willett, M.H. Williams, E. Xoplaki, C. S. Zerefos, and E. Zorita, 2012: A review of 2000 years of paleoclimatic evidence in the Mediterranean. In: Lionello, P. (Ed.), The Climate of the Mediterranean region: from the past to the future. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 87-185
can I please ask you please to structure it more clear and concentrate on the state of the art related to the area and the new aspects of your work
Fig 3 is confusing and implies visually that there is a bias between the two curves. Can you make this figure more clear?
Fig 4 needs also significance
Fig 5. the last sentence is not necessary
Note: y-axes labels range 5–13 °C.
Further, you need to add information about the trend if it is sign. or not. You may also draw the trend line of the reconstruction and compare with the observation.
Fig 6, the last sentence is not necessary
Note: y-axis labels 695 range 2–16 °C.
you may also mention that the curve is entirely reconstruction and does not include instrumental data

Fig 7 and the corresponding text is quite confusing now as you mix precipitation reconstructions with a different seasonality and your March-April temperature reconstruction.
this part needs to be more clear and convincing what the purpose is to compare precip for different season and areas with a March to April temperature reconstruction

Fig 10 here as well, the visual impression is that there is a bias between the two lines. It also needs to be mentioned that the two series are for different seasons and the differences need to be better explained.

other minor changes
Fig 10, y-axes it is Xoplaki et al. 2005 not 2015
References: The journal of the Güner et al. paper is not correctly written
page 19: it should be lower not lover

dear authors
thanks very much for addressing the open points.

I am happy to accept your paper.

with my best wishes

Jürg