Dear Dr Yamamoto,
Your paper has now been seen by two reviewers. Both find the paper worth publication after revision. I concur with the two reviewers as I also find that this version has been considerably improved with respect to the main critique raised by the reviewers on your earlier submitted version; that the data was over interpreted. In your point by point response to reviewer 1, it is explained how the comments will be addressed in a revision. I find that this is all in order, please infer the corrections as you have suggested you will do. The discussion on the significance of the proxy C/I and (C+K)/I, whether or not it is capable of capturing variations of the Bering Strait inflow, is crucial to the conclusions. For this reason, I would like to see some more of the reasoning you make in the interactive comment in the actual paper. I therefore suggest that you add a bit in the Discussion on this topic.
I look forward to see your revised version of the paper considering the comments made by the two reviewers.

Best Regards
Martin

Dear Masanobu Yamamoto,
I am pleased to accept your article for publication after the last revision. Please infer the following technical/editorial corrections in the final version:

Row 27: I suggest changing “…..The quartz/feldspar ratio, a proxy of the BG strength, gradually..” to “...The quartz/feldspar ratio, interpreted as a proxy of the BG strength, gradually……”
Row 30: ..We suppose..:” , I think this should be “We propose”. In any case, the latter would be more appropriate to write.
Figure 1. Please use the same short names on the map as in the text for consistency, 01A-GC instead of 01A etc.
Figure 1. The cores ARA04C and ARA05C are not shown on the map. Please show the cores included in the study on the map.
Figure 2. The colors are presumably showing ratio, but there is no mention of that along the bar or in the figure caption, please add.

Best Regards
Martin