Dear Dr. Dunlea,

Thank you for submitting responses to the comments and suggestions of the two reviewers. Both reviewers are positive about the dataset and the underlying science questions. There is also broad consensus from the reviewers that the presentation of methods and discussion can be bulked up, either through additional text or re-organization. Regarding Rev. 2’s comment about the age model, I think it should be possible to provide the requested information on age model construction while referring readers to the published source(s) for full details on the tie-points used in your age model.

Your responses indicate that you are willing to undertake these revisions, so I invite you to submit a revised manuscript for further consideration. The revised manuscript will go through another stage of peer-review, which requires that I indicate “major revisions”.

Sincerely,
Alberto Reyes (handling editor)

Dear Dr. Dunlea,
Your revised manuscript has been reviewed by one of the original referees. I agree with their recommendation to publish the manuscript in its current form. I would like you to fix one minor thing: please move the figures and tables that are currently in a supplement into the main text as appendices. The Climate of the Past manuscript preparation page gives some guidance on the topic of appendices vs supplements (https://www.climate-of-the-past.net/submission.html). One of the reviewers made the good suggestion to include the full data tables in spreadsheet form. My recommendation is to upload those data to the appropriate data repository and provide a link in the manuscript. Please make these minor structural changes and upload a final revised manuscript.

Thank you for submitting this work to Climate of the Past. I'm looking forward to seeing the paper published formally.

Sincerely,
Alberto Reyes (handling editor)