Dear Authors

Thank you for your thorough response to the reviewers. It is an interesting data set and once the suggested corrections have been completed it will be suitable for publication in Climate of the Past.
I agree with the suggestion to change the title, as this will address some of the reviewers concerns about the interpretation. I am happy to keep the reference to Bond cycles, as this does indeed provide potential insight into a larger body of work, however the suggested caveats must be included.
Regarding the comparison between RECAP and GRIP, I find this interesting and think it does merit further investigation. However, in light of the differences in resolution, and lack of information about seasonality of precipitation at GRIP, I agree it should be removed from this manuscript.
Both reviewers suggest that the results and discussion section should be separated and I am inclined to agree. I understand your reasoning but would encourage you to have another look and see if a degree of separation could be achieved. If it is not possible I suggest you include an opening sentence or two at the beginning on the section to explain the structure. For example, in the following section we present the results together with the discussion ....
Or ...The result and discussion section is separated to first look at the internal climate variability (3.1) followed by the late Holocene seasonality (3.2)

Please go ahead and make the suggested corrections to the manuscript.

Kind regards
Liz