Dear Loic ,

Thank you for your final response. I believe that your comments have adequately addressed the methods issue and the nomenclature issue raised by the reviewers, and I invite you to provide a revised manuscript. It may be that a final review of your revised manuscript will be required, given the extent of the changes that are proposed. I would further encourage you to perhaps reconsider your stance with respect to your responses 2 and 7 to Reviewer 1.

I believe that the comments of Reviewer 1 are supported by the fact that, while it may be true that the existence of millennial events in e.g. CH4 had been speculative until now, this is not the case for marine records, whose resolution and dating are not in fact universally 'too poor' to pick up relevant features. I would therefore again encourage you to consider trying to place your new ice core findings in a more representative global context. Notably, the occurrence of millennial events at ~134ka and ~129 ka specifically has been identified in previous (marine) studies, and evidence of AMOC change on TII also exists (notably in conjunction with IRD data that you show in Fig 3). I tend to concur with Reviewer 1 in being surprised that you do not find these connections relevant or useful to the interpretation of your data, including in particular the nature of the 'HS 11 complex', which is at centre stage in your study.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript,
Sincerely, and with best wishes,
Luke Skinner

Dear Loic,

Thank you for your submission of a revised manuscript. Despite some discrepancies with regard to the suggested revisions, this revised version adequately addresses the key points raised and will now be published in Climate of the Past.

Thank you for your patience,
Luke Skinner