Dear Authors,
Thank you for carefully replying the comments submitted through the four reviewers. This is highly appreciated. However, as some of these comments were highly significant for the reviewers, I prefer them to check if they do agree with your revision. This is the reason why I invite you to submit the revised version that I will request the former reviewers to check. To do so I selected "Reconsider after major revisions" which is my only opportunity through the system to get this necessary second round of review, but doesn't give any indication about the scientific value of your manuscript. I would like however to draw your attention to the "data availability section" at the end of the manuscript that is mandatory (see https://www.climate-of-the-past.net/about/data_policy.html)
Thank you for submitting your interesting results to Climate of the Past and looking forward to reading the revised paper.
denis-didier Rousseau
(Climate of the Past co-editor in chief)

Dear authors,
Thank you so much for the revised version and the replies to the reviewers' comments although some replies appear to be a duplication of a general statement rather than directly addressing the specific comment as noticed by reviewer 3. Moreover, reviewer 3 still requests some minor corrections to your manuscript t(see attachment) hat I am requiring you to address before the final acceptance of your paper.
Thank you for submitting your interesting results to Climate of the Past and looking forward to reading a new submission from yourself and your co-authors.
All the very best
denis-didier Rousseau
Climate of the Past co-editor in chief