Dear Authors,

As you may have understood from their review, the reviewers agree that your paper is of good scientific interest, but they also agree that it still need much work to reach the standard of a publication.

In particular they mentioned that an in-depth attention should be given to the interpretation. They underline over-interpretation in some parts. However, other parts would require a more detailed explanation of the interpretation.

The quality of the presentation was also poorly rated. The paper is difficult to read and the important figures (4 and 6) are very busy and hard to read.

It was also highlighted that the paper should be substantially reworked.

At this point, and in view of the review, I cannot accept the paper for publication.

However, reading your detailed responses the reviewers’ comments and questions I remain open to receive a revised version that would take into account all the responses your provided. I invite you to take into account the direct recommendation and suggestion made to restructure the paper and to improve substantially the figures. I also invite you to pay particular attention to the language.

Please note that receiving a revised manuscript does not imply acceptance of the paper. The revised manuscript will be sent to the reviewers for additional review.

Regards
Marie-France Loutre

Dear Author,

I would like that you implement some technical corrections before your revised manuscript be submitted to a second round of review.

Best regards

Dear Authors,
I invite you to take into account the minor comments that the reviewers suggested and to submit the manuscript to a full detailed check for language.
Thank you very much for your contribution to climate of the past.
Best regard.

Dear authors,

The reviewers are now happy with the scientific content of the paper and it is now almost ready for publication.

Best regards