Dear Authors,

Many thanks for your considerate responses to the invited reviews and the additional reviews that were provided through the online discussion forum. All but one review was supportive of your work, the approach you have used, and the results you have generated. I note that one review was less so. In this instance, I will be guided by the majority of the feedback, and suggest your scientific contribution is accepted for publication. Some of the clarifications sought by the reviewers my aid in addressing the concerns of SC3.

I now ask that you revise your manuscript in light of these, paying particular attention to the requests for clarification and reduction in length of the manuscript:

Reviewer #1: please address all comments included here

SC1: Clarification of the chronology should be included in the revision, however, if this will only add length to the manuscript, I would encourage you to submit a supplementary file that clearly articulates (and graphically represents?) how your chronology was derived. The point regarding coring location is easily clarified in your sites/methods. With regards to cut off for auto/alloch inputs for C/N values, I too would agree with the use of 10.

Reviewer #2: Again, mostly relates to reducing bulk, being more succinct and clear throughout.

SC2: Please include reference in your revision to d-excess, adding in some of the material cited in response (if not already in paper)

SC3: Again, adding in some of the material included here in a more succinct format would be useful. I realise this reviewer is the least supportive of the work, but some of the other comments you need to address may go some way to reconciling this review. Of course, this review will continue to be available for transparency.

SC4: Regarding your statement of encouraging the modelling community to use this work in the absence of palaeoclimate modelling as part of this paper - please can you make your data open access and include a link to it (if you have not already done so). I am unsure why you would remove the statistics you have when asked for more? Are there additional analyses that could be undertaken to address the issues raised? If not, rather than remove, please clarify and comment in the manuscript. In the absence of additional analyses, please just ensure that your text does not suggest that correlation = causation, rather be explicit about the similarities and the fact this in itself lends to further investigation and (may) be helped by use of palaeoclimate modelling scenarios.

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for your considerate responses to the invited reviews and the additional reviews that were provided through the online discussion forum. All but one review was supportive of your work, the approach you have used, and the results you have generated. I note that one review was less so. In this instance, I will be guided by the majority of the feedback, and suggest your scientific contribution is accepted for publication. Some of the clarifications sought by the reviewers my aid in addressing the concerns of SC3.

I now ask that you revise your manuscript in light of these, paying particular attention to the requests for clarification and reduction in length of the manuscript:

Reviewer #1: please address all comments included here

SC1: Clarification of the chronology should be included in the revision, however, if this will only add length to the manuscript, I would encourage you to submit a supplementary file that clearly articulates (and graphically represents?) how your chronology was derived. The point regarding coring location is easily clarified in your sites/methods. With regards to cut off for auto/alloch inputs for C/N values, I too would agree with the use of 10.

Reviewer #2: Again, mostly relates to reducing bulk, being more succinct and clear throughout.

SC2: Please include reference in your revision to d-excess, adding in some of the material cited in response (if not already in paper)

SC3: Again, adding in some of the material included here in a more succinct format would be useful. I realise this reviewer is the least supportive of the work, but some of the other comments you need to address may go some way to reconciling this review. Of course, this review will continue to be available for transparency.

SC4: Regarding your statement of encouraging the modelling community to use this work in the absence of palaeoclimate modelling as part of this paper - please can you make your data open access and include a link to it (if you have not already done so). I am unsure why you would remove the statistics you have when asked for more? Are there additional analyses that could be undertaken to address the issues raised? If not, rather than remove, please clarify and comment in the manuscript. In the absence of additional analyses, please just ensure that your text does not suggest that correlation = causation, rather be explicit about the similarities and the fact this in itself lends to further investigation and (may) be helped by use of palaeoclimate modelling scenarios.

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for your considerate responses to the invited reviews and the additional reviews that were provided through the online discussion forum. All but one review was supportive of your work, the approach you have used, and the results you have generated. I note that one review was less so. In this instance, I will be guided by the majority of the feedback, and suggest your scientific contribution is accepted for publication. Some of the clarifications sought by the reviewers my aid in addressing the concerns of SC3.

I now ask that you revise your manuscript in light of these, paying particular attention to the requests for clarification and reduction in length of the manuscript:

Reviewer #1: please address all comments included here

SC1: Clarification of the chronology should be included in the revision, however, if this will only add length to the manuscript, I would encourage you to submit a supplementary file that clearly articulates (and graphically represents?) how your chronology was derived. The point regarding coring location is easily clarified in your sites/methods. With regards to cut off for auto/alloch inputs for C/N values, I too would agree with the use of 10.

Reviewer #2: Again, mostly relates to reducing bulk, being more succinct and clear throughout.

SC2: Please include reference in your revision to d-excess, adding in some of the material cited in response (if not already in paper)

SC3: Again, adding in some of the material included here in a more succinct format would be useful. I realise this reviewer is the least supportive of the work, but some of the other comments you need to address may go some way to reconciling this review. Of course, this review will continue to be available for transparency.

SC4: Regarding your statement of encouraging the modelling community to use this work in the absence of palaeoclimate modelling as part of this paper - please can you make your data open access and include a link to it (if you have not already done so). I am unsure why you would remove the statistics you have when asked for more? Are there additional analyses that could be undertaken to address the issues raised? If not, rather than remove, please clarify and comment in the manuscript. In the absence of additional analyses, please just ensure that your text does not suggest that correlation = causation, rather be explicit about the similarities and the fact this in itself lends to further investigation and (may) be helped by use of palaeoclimate modelling scenarios.

Non-public comments to the Author:
Dear Authors,

**Apologies, I have no idea what is going on with the system - I have been asked to make another decision on your manuscript. My decision as before still stands, and I know from your email a week or so ago, that you are waiting for a colleague to return from leave to make the final changes. I did have to change the system to "major" revisions, otherwise I cannot get another peer-review (as outlined in my original comments to you - pasted below) - although I believe the actual changes are minor - this option does not allow for another review. Please note, the comments to Authors above (for public viewing) are identical to those already received. I've been in touch with the Editorial office to work out what the glitch is. I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript when it is ready.

Best wishes
Keely

- - - - -

Many thanks for the effort you have invested into your responses. I am making my decision based on Reviewers 1 and 2, and comments SC1, SC2, and SC4. Given the overwhelming positive nature of these reviews, I allow them to "override" the review of SC3. Is it worth citing some of the work of SC3 in your paper, given you argue that is actually in support of your approach? (if you have not done so already).

Given you have to cut the length of the paper, but at the same time clarify a few sections - I believe this paper sits somewhere between minor and major corrections (it could be time consuming). I would like it to have a new iteration undergo a sense check by the original invited reviewers after your changes have been made, so I need to choose major corrections - not because I feel the science is faulty, but it would be good to get an expert opinion on the new version; I do not anticipate too many corrections at the next stage. Hopefully you understand this rationale as to me choosing this response, I need to be confident that the new version continues to be robust. I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript!

Best wishes
Keely

Dear Johannes and co-authors,

Following the re-review of your manuscript I am pleased to inform you that we are happy to accept your contribution with a few minor corrections (as outlined by the reviewer, and copied below).

Both the reviewer and I would like to thank you for your thoughtful revisions to the manuscript, which is now much improved.

Best wishes
Keely

Minor edits to be undertaken:

Some minor rough areas remain in the manuscript that the authors need to address. For one, the accepted symbol for deuterium is “D”, not “d” as the authors seem to use throughout out the text and the figure legends. For another, a contradiction seems to exist between lines 17-19 on page 18 that state that atmospheric circulation over Europe has not changed much over the past 35 ky and lines 7-12 on page 19 that invoke changes in the Westerlies during the Younger Dryas. This seeming contradiction needs clarification. A third issue is that the TOC/N ratios cited on lines 19-23 are atomic ratios, not weight ratios. Atomic ratios are 1.15 times larger than weight ratios, which is not much but is enough to influence their interpretations as being aquatic vs land plant indicators.

In addition, a number of minor syntactical corrections should be considered:
Page 2, line 1 – change to read “Causes of the Late Glacial to”
Page 2, line 4 – replace “crucial” by “keys”
Page 3, line 7 – change to read “Explanation for the Younger Dryas”
Page 3, line 12 – change to read “reconstruction by providing”
Page 3, line 17 – replace “eaf” by “leaf”
Page 3, line 28 – change to read “during recent years”
Page 7, line 6 – replace “grinded” by “ground”
Page 11, line 3 – replace “nominator” by “numerator”
Page 11, line 28 – specify whether the TOC/N ratios are atomic or weight here and in Figure 3 legend
Page 12, line 10 – replace “more positive” by “less negative”
Page 12, line 17 – replace “autochthon” by “authochthonous” and “allochthon” by “allochthonous”
Page 13, line 25 – change “significant” to “significantly”
Page 14, line 12 – change “composition” to “compositions”
Page 15, line 3 – replace “requested” by “required”
Page 15, line 30 – change “imply” to “implies”
Page 21, line23 – The phrase “which triggered solar insolation” is confusing. Insolation is a fancy word for solar heating. Solar activity certainly is responsible for solar heating, but what does North Atlantic temperature have to do with causing it? Please clarify.

Dear Johannes and co-authors,

Once again, many thanks for your efforts in addressing the final set of edits from a re-review of your manuscript. I am happy to report that your paper will be accepted for publication in Climate of the Past.

Wishing you all the best in your future research.
Keely