I have read over the commentary where the authors respond to both reviewers for this paper. I am satisfied that the authors have done their best to try and address the concerns in a realistic way, although for some (minor) comments and concerns they may have general differences with the reviewers. This would not detract from the quality and/or findings of the paper. I recognise some of the limitations that exist because of time and or availability of data at-hand that were used to stage this effort. I recommend publication after the revisions that the authors agreed to undertake, including their plan for restructuring and changing some of the content of the figures for clarity. In addition, a catalogue of the metadata for the proxy data that were used (based on Reeves et al., 2013) in tabulated format need to be included (in an appendix is fine). I suggest that three months should be more than enough time to achieve the required edits and additions to this work to make it publishable.

Greetings,

I'm thankful that the authors have gone to great length to consider the comments of the previous reviews. I feel they have been addressed, and where they have not been an ample explanation is provided as to why. I'm especially happy to see that the metadata for the proxies have been included in the supplement, which makes it transparent where the sources of palaeoclimate information have come from. I have no problem with this spreadsheet being in "near-final" form, as what is missing has been promised by the time the publication will head to press (and this can be easily included).

I recommend the work is now publishable, and commend the authors on their team effort in support of the SHAPE initiative.