|This manuscript has been considerably improved since the first version the present reviewer read. The majority, albeit not all, my comments have been addressed. I endorse publication of the revised version of the manuscript – although I still think the authors could be better in placing their study into a wider research context – as the article presents a new two millennia long tree-ring based hydroclimate reconstruction from Europe. It is worth to take note of that, to date, only one such reconstruction exists: the one by Büntgen et al. (2011). So it is a valuable contribution.|
I would like to see some additional discussion about why not RCS detrending have been attempted. It was applied – the success of it hard to deem – in Büntgen et al. (2011) on a rather similar material that was hardly less heterogeneous to its nature. Although the present study contributes with valuable new understanding at interannual to decadal scale of past spring to summer hydroclimate variability – especially with regards to extremes – the long-term trends that certainly existed would also have been valuable to capture. Given the short segment length of the material, only RCS detrending can achieve that.
I am delighted to see that the authors are going to make their data freely available. It will be very valuable for future research. However, it would also be good it the authors too despite the data at the International Tree-Ring Data Bank (ITRDB) as it will better safeguard long-term accessibility. Moreover, the actual calibrated reconstruction, with clear caveats regarding the above-mentioned limitations in long-term variability, should be made available at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data
Finally, the authors should consider to get their article carefully checked and edited for correct English language use. The present reviewer is not native speaker but it appears clearly that the English language in the article contains numerous errors in grammar, syntax, and general structure. Sometimes there is an unsuitable choice of word for the context too. The Reference list contains errors and mistakes and should be carefully copyedited. I will just prove two examples here (out of many similar ones):
Reference Büntgen et al. (2010a): Stated to be still “In press” despite published 2010 and volume and page number information is missing.
Reference Cook et al. (2015) – special characters missing/wrong: Buntgen should be Büntgen. Cufar should be Čufar. Kose should be Köse. Levanic should be Levanič. Wazny should be Ważny.
Page 1, line 14: Remove the word “would”.
Page 1, line 15: Remove the word “total”.
Page 1, line 28: Add ~ before 38% and 39%.
Page 2, lines 9–11: Add reference: Cook, E.R., Woodhouse, C.A., Eakin, M., Meko, D.M., Stahle, D.W., 2004. Long-term aridity changes in the western United States. Science 306, 1015–1018. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102586.
Page 5, line 6: Any web link to where to obtain the DWD records?
Page 18, line 12: Would not a warm spring with moderate rainfall rather increase oak growth? If it is warm and enough soil moisture, I would have guessed that growth conditions would be rather favourable?