Dear Dr. Tabone,

Thanks you for submitting your manuscript for consideration to “Climate of the Past”. As you are aware, we have now received two referee comments. Both reviewers are overall positive in their evaluation of your manuscript and find your attempt to estimate the Greenland contribution to sea level variability during glacial times very relevant. However, as you are aware they also raise some questions to your methodologies and choice of forcing. In your rebuttal letters, you address this issue in detail and I would therefore like to invite you to re-submit your manuscript after the indicated major revisions. Please note that if you chose to re-submit, the manuscript will likely be subject to one more round of reviews, as both the reviewers argue for “major revisions”.

In your re-submission, please take into account all reviewers’ comments and correct your manuscript accordingly. When carrying out your corrections, please also remember that more in-depth explanations can be helpful also for the general reader. This also includes a discussion, if you do not agree with any of the reviewers comments.

When re-submitting your manuscript, please include a version, where all changes are highlighted clearly.

Kind regards,
Marit-Solveig Seidenkrantz, Editor

Dear Dr. Tabone,

Thanks you for re-submitting your manuscript for consideration to “Climate of the Past”. I am pleased to see your detailed answers to the reviewers’ comments, as well as thorough corrections to your manuscript, in particular with respect to surface vs subsurface ocean temperatures during stadials vs interstadials of the DO cycles.

However, before final decision, I would ask you for a few additional corrections in order to make your results and conclusions clearer for the reader:
1) Please add both in the abstract and the conclusions that you use warm surface waters (and cool subsurface waters?) during D-O interstadials and cold surface waters and warmer subsurface waters during stadials to drive your model simulation.
2) Please also make it clear during which periods (D-O stadials or interstadials) that you see ice surface vs basal melting. This may be logical, but it would still be good to point out. The conclusions and abstract also lack a clear conclusion on, whether the total melting rates are higher due to surface or basal melt according to your model output. In the conclusions, you could also point out the iceberg release that may be a consequence of increased basal melt.
There may be parts where you do not feel comfortable in making a very clear statement, but in that case a tentative conclusion would be good.

Again, when re-submitting your manuscript, please include a version, where all changes are highlighted clearly.

Kind regards,
Marit-Solveig Seidenkrantz, Editor