Dear Authors,

Thank you for your responses to the reviewers’ comments.

Both reviewers find your study interesting. They suggest some improvements but no substantial change in the manuscript. Overall, your suggestions to take their comments into account appear reasonable to me at this stage and I would thus be happy to consider a revised version for publication in Climate of the Past.

Sincerely,

Hugues Goosse

Dear Authors,

Thanks for submitting this new version of your manuscript. After reading it, I consider that you have well taken into account the comments of the reviewers and that it can be published in Climate of the Past. I have made only a few suggestions for technical corrections below.

Best regards,

Hugues Goosse

Suggestions:
The lines correspond to the version with track changes
Line 382. ‘This distance measure, which is sensitive to large deviations, shall avoid levelling out of station data resulting in reduced variance of reconstructions’. I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you mean that with this choice of the distance measure you have a smaller risk to have reduced variance in the reconstruction? Maybe a rephrasing or a little bit more detail will help the reader.

Line 392 ‘measure can have an impact on the capability of the ARM to correctly reproduce variance and mean’. Would it be possible to be more explicit on the impact on the variance and mean (for example a reduction or amplification of the variance, a mean biased towards high or low values’) ?

Line 435 ‘From the limitations of the ARM described in the previous section we can conclude that also precipitation reconstructions are not perfect, but might be affected by difficulties, e.g. ‘. This sentence is a bit heavy for me. Could you rephrase it (I would for instance suppress ‘also’ at least) ?