Dear Authors,

Despite many efforts to obtain a comment from a third reviewer, an expert in glacier modeling, I have not received any. Waiting longer is not reasonable, and I do not want to delay further the decision. I looked at your responses to both reviewers and the Data Review team comments, and feel that your are in a good position to address most concerns raised in their comments. Therefore, I’m inviting you to submit a revised manuscript.
Both reviewers were suggesting moving the glacier modeling part entirely to main body of the paper. I think you should only move some of the modeling material to the main body, but not everything. This part should include a discussion of the limitations of the model that were discussed in your replies to both reviewers. I also agree that the paper should include a regional synthesis and/or comparisons to other records in the Arctic.
The Special Issue is indeed on the last 2k, but it also meant to be dedicated to regional syntheses. Figure 3 was also much commented by reviewers and the Data review team. I suggest you include an age/distance plot as supplemental information, and to greatly clarify what the second axis means (as you suggested in your reply). Moreover, this second plot has been built on previously published data, and we would like to make sure that the input data that were used to create the figure (not the output that’s plotted in the figure) would be archived in a data repository prior to final publication. Please add a small table in section 5.3 as suggested in your reply to reviewer 1. Figure 1 could be improved by increasing the size of all panels. Panel C is not clear at all, and might be removed. Figure 2 looks good to me.
While you already discussed how you can address the comments of the reviewers, please make sure to outline in detail how and where these comments have been addressed in your revised version.
I’m looking forward to reading the revised version of your manuscript.

Best Regards
Pierre Francus

Dear Authors,

I read reviewers’ comments and assessed the manuscript myself. I apologize it took so long.
You clearly responded to the reviewers’ comments and I think you addressed most of them.
I’m therefore happy to accept the paper subject to technical corrections. The technical corrections that I would require are the following:
- Data availability:
• Add a "data availability" section to include details on where the input data are archived, including the primary input and output data in this study.
• 14C data are now in the supplement, which is great, but they also need to be transferred to a public repository such as NOAA or Pangaea. Please add "in the data availability" a section with the details (i.e. DOI) on where these input data are archived. Please make sure to submit all of the data that are input to Fig 3, including the data in Table 1 plus and the data in section 2 of the Supplement.
• Please also include the normalized pdf curve in the repository.
- If you keep current Figure 3 in the main text, please add the information suggested by reviewer 1.
- Please also follow the last suggestion of reviewer: “provide a figure/table and text showing glacier model performance under reasonable ranges of parameter values in the SI, Section 5. ». It will partly address the concern raised by reviewer 1 in his first bullet point, concerns that I’m sharing.
- I annotated your PDF files with a few comments and suggestions. Please find these versions in the separated file. One of them is about the numbering of your figures in the Supplement. Please use a Fig. S1, Fig. S2, … numbering scheme to avoid confusion.
- The reference lists contain several incomplete references and others that need to be updated.

Thank you for your contribution to this Special Issue of Climate of the Past.

Best Regards

Pierre Francus