Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your careful point-by-point responses to the referee reports. Based on the referee reports and your responses, I invite you to submit a revised manuscript, which I will reconsider after another round of reviews.

I have two points myself that I ask you to clarify:

(1) I am not quite satisfied with your response to the following issue raised by the first referee: "Without a comparison between ECHAM5-wiso and MPI-ESM-wiso which is not discussed here, it is quite complicated to perform comparison between mid-Holocene and PST." If it were not possible to use the same GCM for both simulations, then indeed a comparison between ECHAM5-wiso and MPI-ESM-wiso would be required in order to reveal any possible systematic bias affecting the mid-Holocene anomaly. I propose to at least compare the 2-m temperature and δ18O in precipitation under present-day conditions in both GCM simulations.

(2) In response to both referees, you argue: "The correct δ18O ratios are consequently already included but hidden in the GCM simulation results, which just need to be extracted by a refinement with an RCM." This sounds like "magic", but it clearly is not, hence please explain in a rigorous way at some point in your manuscript, in which way the RCM is able to bring out the information "hidden" in the GCM simulation results.

Yours sincerely,

André Paul

Dear Authors,

Unfortunately, after a long time I have only been able to obtain one review of your revised manuscript, and I am very sorry for the implied delay.

However, the review is constructive and favorable. Although the referee asks for major revisions, they should be doable in a reasonable amount of time. I encourage you to provide further quantitative evidence, as outlined in the referee's general comments and in the comments on Sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.2.1. If you find that this is not entirely possible, then carefully adjust your conclusions accordingly, as also suggested by the referee. Personally, I think that this may not be necessary, as I find the referee's comments rather specific and helpful. Therefore I ask you to provide a point-by-point response to the referee's comments on the Results section and to pay close attention to the Specific Comments and Technical Corrections as well.

I am looking forward to receive your modified manuscript soon, and I am quite optimistic about its final publication.

With my best wishes,

André Paul

Dear Authors,

Thank you for carefully revising your manuscript. After receiving the final referee report, I gladly accept your work for publication, subject merely to technical corrections.

Regarding those corrections, please closely follow the detailed referee report point by point.

Thank you once more for submitting your work to Climate of the Past.

Yours sincerely,

André Paul