The authors did a good job of revision paying attention to the requests of the two reviewers. There are some minor points that need some clarifications.
1) Along the text it is never very clear if the authors intend BP as a synonym for cal BP. A sentence in the methods should help.
2) The 4.2 event along the text is reportes as: ka event, ka BP event and cal ka BP event. Please be consistent
3) Lines 24-25 pag. 14 please check the font;
4) Pag. 12 Line 27-28. It is not correct that speleothms suggest wetter summer. Isola et al. 2018 deduced wetter summer by other evidences. It is remarkable that this seems confirmed (as you stated) by beech forest development.
5) Pag. 15 line 20. The same as 4. I think it might be enough to write: "as suggested by Isola et al. 2018...."
6) It is important to remember that the reported vegetational structure is not consistent with the NAO negative mode (as also suggested by Bini et al. 2018). It is also important to refer to NAO-like condition.
I think after these minor corrections the manuscript is a very good contribution to the special issue on the 4.2 ka BP event.

I thank the author for their contribution to the special issue and for the correction made. I'm happy to accept this manuscript.