Dear Authors,

Thank you for providing thorough responses to the referees' comments. I really enjoyed reading the discussion. Both referees opted for reconsidering your manuscript after major revisions, and I follow their recommendations.

Please revise the manuscript as you outlined. I specifically ask you address the issue of model inadequacy or model error that both referees brought up. In addition, following the suggestions by the second referee, please clarify the structure of the manuscript to make it more readable, also for a slightly more general audience.

Yours sincerely,

André Paul

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the very thorough revision of your manuscript! Both reviewers like it (as I do!) and acknowledge the additional work that you put in, which makes the manuscript even more credible.

I just ask you to check whether you can shorten the manuscript a little (say, by about 10 %) without much effort, and to closely follow up on the final comments by the first referee.

Please consider carefully whether you only want to modify the manuscript regarding the thoughtful choice of prior distributions, or you think it pays off in terms of improvements in the model results when you change your code as well.

Yours sincerely,

André Paul

Dear Authors,

Thank you for carefully revising your manuscript 􏱟according to the final comments by the 􏱟first referee, as well as for shortening the manuscript. I congratulate you on this very thorough piece of work, and I am happy to accept it for publication in Climate of the Past.

With kind regards,

André Paul