Dear authors,

I have now gone through your responses to the reviews and the short comment and in most cases I agree with your strategies for addressing the concerns raised by the reviewers. I therefore encourage you to address these comments as fully as possible following and expanding upon your proposed strategies. In addition, I would like you to include the ensemble of model experiments (and their setup) that you are describing in your reply to the short comment (by Nicolas Young) in the form of supplementary materials.
I agree with the authors that Figure 4 is a useful visualization of the table contents and should therefore be retained. The common line in the reviewers’ comments is the need for a better integration between the results of this study and the interpretation of paleoclimate evidence related to the major drivers of the reconstructed ice sheet behavior. Hence, I would like to see a more detailed analysis and discussion of this in the revised manuscript.
Good luck with the implementation of the reviews. I look forward to seeing the new version of the manuscript.

Kind regards,

Irina

Dear authors,

With this email I would like to confirm that your revised manuscript is nearly ready for publication. I feel that your discussion of the large-scale versus regional drivers of the Holocene changes in NW and N Greenland could benefit from a more detailed overview of the modeling studies and ocean proxy data. However, I also feel that it might trigger a shift in the study's focus from the empirical evidence to the general circulation patterns.

Before I recommend your article for publication, I would like your text to undergo a careful proofread. I have spotted a newly introduced sentence that is too long and difficult to follow (lines 318 - 321) and a few mistakes/misprints (e.g., lines 115, 244, 375).

I look forward to receiving the final version of the manuscript

Kind regards,

Irina