The manuscript  provides new data  of the ETM2  and H2 early Eocene Hyperthermal  events in the  Salisbury Embayment (Mid Atlantic coastal plain). This area has been studied in some sequences in the last years with particular interest on the PETM and the hyperthermal events of the lower Eocene , however the data presented by the authors are interesting as they show short - term changes and long - term trends which are often not consistent with data from pelagic, hemipelagic and coastal successions.

The first part of the manuscript is very robust and characterizes the stratigraphic framework of the succession which allows to correlate the investigated succession with the hyperthermal events ETM2 and H2.

I suggest the authors not to use informal terms in their biostratigraphic schemes and in any case to present them in detail in the methods. Specifically, the use of lower/upper before the biozone cannot be added in the biostratigraphy column of the figures. The authors can instead add events in the figure in order to highlight the possible informal subdivision of the biozone. However, these events should be detailed in the text (more details in the text).

The second part is dedicated to the changes that occurred in this depositional setting and to their substantial inconsistency with the available data both in terms of temporal relationships and actual modifications of the environment during these perturbations.

In the pdf file, I have included many comments and suggestions that the authors can use to implement their manuscript. In particular the authors must make sure not to mix results and discussion of them throughout the ms (details are provided in the edited file).

As for the discussion, there are some points, especially in the part that offers scenarios useful to explain the peculiar results of this study, which are either superficially presented or are inconsistent with the available literature (e.g. , the AMOC hypothesis, more  details on specific points  are provided in the edited file). 

Another point that could potentially be improved is the comparison with all the available data and in any case with those of the Spanish sections which, in addition to having played a important role in the development of fundamental hypotheses related to mechanisms active during the hyperthermals  (e.g., weathering and clay mineralogy)also represent a suitable continuous hemipelagic-continental transect ideal for a comparison with the record of the Mid Atlantic coastal plain.

Finally, I provide there are some suggestions to improve the figures, These are  related to both the lack of units and the use of informal nomenclature ( more   details in the text)

General Comments:

This study presents an interesting and exciting body of work which focuses on the second largest hyperthermal of the early Eocene, ETM2, and its orbitally-paced partner event H2 in an under-studied depositional environment. It is interesting in part due to the curious environmental response (in terms of the timing and patterns of temperature and ecologic change relative to the CIE) which appears to be unique to the region. Except for the handling of uncertainty, the proxy-based environmental reconstructions are robust. Temperature responses are reproduced using two separate proxy systems, perhaps providing confirmation of the temperature trends.

Overall, the records are well discussed and interpreted. The paper is well-written and organized. The topic is certainly of interest to the Cenozoic paleoclimate community and following some minor revisions the manuscript is suitable for publication.

In my opinion, the primary finding of the study is the counterintuitive response of temperature in the region to CO₂ release for ETM2. ETM2 cooling like this has not been observed elsewhere, thus a detailed discussion of changes in the depositional environment, hydroclimate and ocean circulation is warranted. Therefore, I think the manuscript would benefit from a more detailed sedimentological interpretation of the changes in the depositional setting (i.e., physical sedimentology), in addition to the clay mineralogy work presented here.

Unfortunately, there is little to no consideration of proxy uncertainty in the manuscript. Temperature reconstruction figures provide no graphical estimation of uncertainty. Given the current state of the science, this is somewhat misleading and should be addressed prior to publication. Specifically, the authors should note 2sd or 0.95 quantile uncertainty. The paired mean δ¹⁸O and mean TEX₈₆ warming responses add to the validity of the interpreted cooling during ETM2, but a more detailed discussion of potential mechanisms influencing these proxy systems besides surface cooling would improve the manuscript.

In my opinion the manuscript would benefit from a more organized approach to interpreting changes in sedimentation, salinity, bathymetry, ocean and atmospheric circulation, surface productivity, and carbonate chemistry. The narrative of the discussion could be focused somewhat or organized in a way that considers how all the above-mentioned influence sedimentation, perhaps with a schematic figure. As written, the discussion tends to be harder to follow than necessary.

Additionally, some specific aspects of the discussion could be improved. I provide more detailed comments below where I think the authors could bolster their arguments by providing a more thorough discussion. The authors may find that quantitative salinity, seawater δ¹⁸O, reconstructions using δ¹⁸O and TEX₈₆-based temperatures would aid certain arguments in the discussion section.

Specific Comments:

Line 27: I recommend avoiding statements of novelty. If the authors wish to include these statements, please be more specific. As written, it is difficult to decipher if it is the first time both ETM2 and H2 have been identified in a shallow marine setting, or one event, or if it is the first time they’ve been identified along the Atlantic margin, or in the Salisbury embayment.

Line 30: The terminology here is a bit confusing. Was it the Salisbury Embayment in the early Eocene?

Line 33: Perhaps “in addition to pCO₂ forcing” is more appropriate phrasing?

Line 37: This is a bit vague. Systematically related to what ETM2 environmental response? The local CIE? The warming? The lithologic change? I think these fluctuations may still be related to ETM2 and/or H2 in the most general sense. Consider changing to “…related to CIE warming.”

Line 48: Relatively well constrained compared to what? Is it well constrained? The studies the authors cite have C release estimates that range from 4500 to 12000 GtC. Consider removing “well” and “relatively”. 

Line 107: This is somewhat confusing. Consider rephrasing the following sentence: “Samples… have no control on their declination orientation.”

Line 139: A single mass, but two weights? I suggest rephrasing – confusing as written.

Line 214: Admittedly nit-picky, but doesn’t the first ETM2 CIE look closer to -2 to -2.5‰?

Line 263: It may be worth calculating paleo-salinity with δ¹⁸O temps and TEX₈₆-temps, to show that the effect is minimal, or to glean any subtle changes in freshwater input as this would be relevant to the present study.

Line 282: “Rare” or lacking entirely? The abstract indicated that this was the first shallow marine ETM2, but perhaps that needs to be clarified as suggested above.

Line 302: Unless baseline pH is very low, chemical erosion in shallow marine environments requires a strong pH decrease since the lysocline is typically at depths much deeper than the depositional environment discussed here. If acidification is pointed to as a previously hypothesized mechanism driving lower carbonate in this setting, this section could be improved from a discussion of acidification in this type of environment. Perhaps this could be done by providing what is known about lysocline fluctuations from deep marine sites, with a consideration of any regional amplifiers of acidification in the coastal environment. This would help prop-up the author’s statement that changes in siliciclastic flux is driving changes in carbonate content.

Additionally, how would shifts in nutrient availability influence these records? How is this linked to shifts in regional hydrology and circulation in the embayment (if it was still an embayment in the early Eocene)? Though these topics are briefly mentioned w.r.t. palynological assemblage changes, it seems to not be considered currently in the discussion of carbonate accumulation. As the authors note below this section, sedimentation rates (Fig 6) show little variation. Increased siliciclastic flux would tend to increase sedimentation rates if biogenic carbonate deposition is constant. Therefore, given the interpretation, I assume shifts in biogenic carbonate are required, and this could be estimated from sed rate and %CaCO₃. Considering the smaller pH anomaly of ETM2 compared with the PETM, and the shallow paleo-depth of the study site, this may not be due to acidification as the authors point out, but then what would be causing this drop in carbonate if sed rates are uniform and siliciclastic flux is changing? Perhaps shifts in surface productivity? The manuscript would benefit from a discussion of this here. The sedimentation rates provide a primary constraint and could be used quantitively, but this is not done here. Doing this may improve the discussion.

Line 309: More moderate increases in sedimentation rates for ETM2 and H2 or the PETM? At this locality specifically? I see that the authors expand this discussion on sed rates in the following paragraph, but this sentence is somewhat unclear as written.

Line 360: There is much discussion regarding palynologic assemblages pointing to salinity changes. Can this be identified with quantitative salinity reconstructions? If this cannot be done, please explain why in the manuscript.

Line 391: If possible, add a reference detailing the response of hydrologic cycle to various magnitude C release (i.e., [non]linearity of hydro response). This is needed for this line and for the following discussion in this paragraph.

Line 410: I don’t follow this argument. If the broad δ¹⁸O warming of ETM2 with onset of ~20kyr is missing, then why would you preserve the CIE in the same foram samples? Please expand on this topic or remove the argument altogether.