Dear Emily & coauthors,

thank you for providing your revision and rebuttal to the comments of the two reviewers. Overall, you did address them adequately so that I can accept your manuscript for publication in TC. However, I would like to emphasize that some parts of your manuscript require some clarifications of the technical kind resp. copyediting, see list below. Please consider and incorporate them in the final revised version of your manuscript.

Regards,
Olaf

Fig. 3 caption:
- you write u_modeled and u_observed. Please use same nomenclature as elsewhere in the MS, i.e. u_mod and u_obs.
- change "b)" to "(b)"
- add comma after vectors

p9l18: ambiguous use of "3.8 - 7.2 x ..." and "1.47 - 2.18 x". Mathematically different from what you want to express (range), please use brackets before "x" operator for the range terms.

p12l2: "...relatively small, and the results, hence ..." - unclear what you want to say, rephrase.

p13l29: I suggest to add the percentage of flux increase in change after the "increasing 0.35 Gt/a" to which this value corresponds on relation to the total flux.

p15l8: "line was double +24 m/a the acceleration". Unclear. Is 24 already the double value, or would that be 48? Clarify.

Fig 7 caption: add a statement about the letters A-H at the top of the graph, i.e. what their location on the x-axis stands for.

p16: use use experiments (E-G) and Experiments G etc. Please unify. I suggest to use only experiments without capital E.

Supplement

Fig 1: explain xpsn yspn.
Fig 2: unresolved reference to other figure: Fig ??. -> resolve
Fig 3: "value of m" -> m in math mode