Thanks for your clear responses to the reviewer comments. Based on those responses I now request that you undertake the major revision you have proposed. It would be most helpful if, as part of that revision, you update your response files to indicate precisely what changes were made, with line numbers, to allow me to efficiently evaluate the revised manuscript. Although I cannot promise that the paper will be accepted after the revision, given the reviewer's generally optimistic responses it seems likely that a revision will produce a positive outcome and at this point I do not expect to send the paper back to the reviewers, though a quick review from one of them is possible

I have a few comments of my own after looking at the reviews.
Related to reviewer 1:
Line 79: The question about age scale I believe was about what specific age scale (e.g., AICC 2012, other? ) was used for EDML.
Lines 189-191: I caution the consideration of methane as a temperature indicator. It is very likely that there is a big imprint of tropical hydrology and it certainly does not track global temperature.

Related to reviewer 2:
General: I share the concern that the “strawperson” of a unique YD/BA mechanism is somewhat weak. I feel it is appropriate to recognize in the text that this uniqueness is by no means a universal opinion, or even likely a 50:50 one. The impact trigger papers are not widely believed (though of course one should keep an open mind).

One more comment from me: why not use the WAIS Divide methane record (Rhodes et al., 2015) or the NEEM methane record (Chappellaz et al., 2013)? These are much more detailed than the NGRIP record. Even though the WAIS record comes from Antarctica, the trends in either hemisphere are largely the same.

Thank you for being responsive to reviewer's concerns and for the revised manuscript. I am sorry for the long delay in responding. After reading through the paper I feel that it is not yet ready for publication. The reviewers did find merit in your approach to quantifying the nature of DO events, and I agree with that. However, I think readers will benefit from additional revision. I made a large number of comments in the attached pdf file and I hope you will be able to use this for further revision and response. Individually these comments are not major, but since there are a fair number of them I an calling this a major revision. If my comments are not clear or not accessible in the pdf file please let me know and I will summarize them separately.

Thanks for your careful revision of this paper and please accept my apologies for the unreasonably long delay in responding! I made a few small comments in the attached pdf that you can consider in making the final version of the paper but I do not need to review it again. Congratulations on the publication of this work!