Dear authors,
This is a very important piece of hard work that will remark a significant step forward in historical climatology in Latin America.
I am pleased to see that the referees are strongly supportive of the manuscript and provided very helpful and constructive comments.
Please address all the referee and short comments as stated in your author response.
Most importantly, please include the confidence rating (Major point by David Nash) and make sure a "data availability" section is included in the manuscript.
Your plan to submit your data (points 2 and 3 in the SC1 plus the confidence rating) in machine readable format to the NOAA server is a good strategy. Please note that the data can (and should) be sent to NOAA already prior to publication, so that the data page can be prepared by them and made publicly accessible upon notice by the authors at the date of publication. This will ensure a timely release of this very nice and important dataset.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
Best regards,
Raphael Neukom

Dear authors,
The two reviewers have looked at the revised version of the manuscript, and they are happy with all your changes. So I am pleased to accept the manuscript subject to the following technical corrections:

(A): Data stewardship: The data stewardship team is generally happy with your changes/answer, but to fully comply with the data policy please clarify the following points
A1: There seems to be a contradiction between the reply to the editor and the information in the data availability section regarding the met' station data. The former refers to the Climate Explorer data search interface and the latter says, "The weather station measurements used in this study can be consulted at the Instituto Nacional de Sismología, Vulcanología, Meteorología e Hidrología in Guatemala City." Which is it?
Regarding the link to "Climate Explorer": rather than referring to the web-search interface (which is not permanent), the authors should cite the data product and version number that was used -- the data behind the search. I assume the data are now stored as GHCN stations? So if you provide a station name and/or number that allow unambiguous identification of the stations, this would be sufficient.
A2: NOAA WDC Paleo link: Please provide the link to the editor once it is available so, that the data availability can be reviewed by the data stewardship team of the special issue editorial board. The paper will be accepted once we’ve had a look at the data.

(B) Reviewer #2:
B1: I am very happy that the authors have addressed the concerns raised in my original review. One technical correction is needed (p.23, line 12) - I suspect that authors mean 'stationary' rather than 'non-stationary' here.

(C) Editor comments:
C1: Please remove “[through the ###2k working group]” From the acknowledgments. This paper was not created within one of the official 2k working groups. But it is a contribution to PAGES2k so I suggest to just write: “This is a contribution to the PAGES 2k Network”.
C2: Consider acknowledging the reviewers.

Please let me know if there are any questions related to these technical corrections.

Best regards,
Raphael Neukom