Whilst two reviewers clearly consider this a manuscript of interest there is clearly evidence for the need for a major revision and resubmission. I note that the lead author states this is her first paper at masters level and i would encourage her to work carefully through the reviews, with her mentors, and resubmit.
The minor points are self explanatory but please also concentrate on the more major points of consideration that the two reviewers have. In particular:
- add in a clear and consistent outline on the methods of how the cores and the records used were obtained, sources etc.
- add in a clear outline and summary on which time scales are investiated and why (by speices, resolution, processing step etc). It is important to clarify the drawback, assumptions and biases of each step.
- the discussion on signal correlations (ENSO, SAM, IOD) is poor and needs a more thorough framework of addressing non statistically significant correlations.

I hope the authors find these two very thorough reviews useful and are able to revise their manuscript.

with best wishes
mary gagen

The authors have done a thorough job on the review and have addressed all major points and added requested stylistic or interpretive changes from the reviewers as well. I am happy to accept this for publication now.