Dear Dr. Achterberg,

I would like to thank you for replying to both reviews. Both referees highlighted the excellent quality of your data, but they had major concerns about the general structure of your manuscript and the lack of a more comprehensive comparison with other European palaeoenvironmental records. Figure 11 is a good first attempt, but I find the figure rather difficult to read. I would suggest to show the original lake level and tree ring curves (e.g., Magny et al., 2004, Spurk et al., 2002). Furthermore, both referees recommended that a native English speaker should proofread your manuscript.
I am willing to accept the manuscript for publication in Climate of the Past after thorough revisions have been made.

Best wishes,
Dominik Fleitmann

Dear Dr. Achterberg,

I would like to thank you for your revisions! However, I think Figure 11 requires major revisions, particularly because it is one of the key-figures and crucial to highlight the relevance of your new reconstruction as a new palaeomoisture record. The current figure is very complex and it is very diffcult to access all the information. As mentioned previously, I would suggest to show some of the data as curves to enhance the quality, the lake level status data of Magny et al. (2004), for instance, would be very well-suited. You could also add the Spurk et al. (2002) deposition rate data (Fig. 6 in original publication).

Best wishes,
Dominik Fleitmann

Dear Dr. Achterberg,

I would like to thank you for revising figure 11, the two new figures are more informative and well-suited to support your arguments. The manuscript is now well-suited for publication in Climate of the Past. I realized, however, that there a few spelling mistakes and grammatical mistakes, which should be removed during the final editing process. I would suggest to ask a native speaker to proofread your manuscript.

best wishes,
Dominik Fleitmann