Dear Authors,
after reading the reviewers comments and your replies, I am happy to invite you to submit a new version of the MS that takes into account the comments of both reviewers, in particular those of Rev.2.
I think the answers you provided are satisfactory, but I might seek again advice from one reviewer to make sure the points they raised were addressed in full. I look forward to receive the new version of your MS.
Regards,
Alessio Rovere

Dear Author, I am happy to say that your paper is now acceptable in Climate of the Past pending minor revisions.
In particular, please take into account these additional reviews requests from Ref #2.
I agree with the referee that the conclusive statement could be stronger. I was in fact left wondering which mechanisms are more important than others, and when. E.g. I imagine that anthropogenic influences are the most relevant for the recent part of the record?

FROM REV 2 REPORT:
The authors have made a significant effort in answering the Reivewers’ comments and I only have a few additional, minor comments:

The authors seems to have misunderstood my comment on asking for a better explanation on the significance of the study site. The answered with an extended explanation to the significance of AMOC. This is a good addition, but it would have been nice to get a few words also on why NW European sites are important and why the Gullmarfjorden is especially good. With the addition made this is no longer essential, but would improve the ms.

§5.1: Remember author name for “Cassidulina neoteretis” and check that author names have been added to all species (the first time).

§5.2: During the DACP there was warming of subsurface waters off West Greenland (see e.g. Seidenkrantz et al. 2007, Holocene), ascribed to a stronger Atlantic component of the West Greenland Current and a negative NAO.

Page 17 lower part: please add more detailed explanation to the link between cold AMO phase and cold bottom water – this link may not be logical to everyone.

Conclusion, final 4 lines: can it be concluded which of the mechanisms are most important and under which conditions? Right now, it is rather imprecise.

Dear authors,
In order to proceed with your MS, I ask you to address ALL the further comments by reviewer 2, pasted hereafter for your convenience.

In particular, I would point your attention to the comment about your conclusions, that was in the first rev.2 comment, then re-iterated in my editorial comment and is now re-re-iterated by rev.2. Clearly we are not happy on how you simplified a very complicated issue in the closing paragraph of your paper. Your final claim that the recent warming 'does not stand out' compared with the Roman Warm Period and MCA is surely interesting, provocative and supported by the data you show, but needs to be better framed to avoid misinterpretations. My suggestion is to sum up for the reader what are the most likely causes for warmer conditions in each period (you report them pretty much in the paper), not just list them generally in the next sentence.

I look forward to receive a revised version of your MS in due course.

REVIEWER 2 comments
The authors have made a significant effort in answering the Reivewers’ comments and I only have a few additional, minor comments:

The authors seems to have misunderstood my comment on asking for a better explanation on the significance of the study site. The answered with an extended explanation to the significance of AMOC. This is a good addition, but it would have been nice to get a few words also on why NW European sites are important and why the Gullmarfjorden is especially good. With the addition made this is no longer essential, but would improve the ms.

§5.1: Remember author name for “Cassidulina neoteretis” and check that author names have been added to all species (the first time).

§5.2: During the DACP there was warming of subsurface waters off West Greenland (see e.g. Seidenkrantz et al. 2007, Holocene), ascribed to a stronger Atlantic component of the West Greenland Current and a negative NAO.

Page 17 lower part: please add more detailed explanation to the link between cold AMO phase and cold bottom water – this link may not be logical to everyone.

Conclusion, final 4 lines: can it be concluded which of the mechanisms are most important and under which conditions? Right now, it is rather imprecise.

Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting a revised version of your MS, and the associated response to the reviewers.
I think you answered the reviewer's criticism in a satisfactory way, and as a result the MS is now acceptable for publication.
I have few very minor revisions, that I detail hereafter.

1.Please put the doi for the Pangea data, this will make it easier for anyone to find your data.
2.I would suggest, in the final version, to advise readers to use the conclusions with the due caution since your dataset does not go beyond the year 1996 due to lack of material and, hence, does not cover the most recent years of warming. This might fit in either the discussion or conclusion section.
3.Could you also explicitly refer to other studies showing the same pattern about the recent warming seen in their datasets when bringing up the contemporary warming? This could be easily inserted in the discussion.

Please consider these few suggestions. As soon as I receive your revised MS, I will be happy to proceed.

Many thanks for choosing CP to publish your research.
Regards,
Alessio Rovere

Dear Authors,
your paper is now acceptable for publication. Thank you for choosing Climate of the Past to publish your research.
Alessio Rovere