Dear Dr. Plach and colleagues,

Thank you very much for the revised version of your manuscript submitted to TC. I enclose a marked-up copy of your manuscript with editorial changes that I expect you to include in a final submission. As these are mostly technical in nature, they should be largely uncontroversial. You received supportive reviews with a few critical notes on the limitations of your work as you chose not to include aspects such as GIA and ocean forcing. I am underwhelmed by your response to these viewpoints, in terms of thinking and text generated in the manuscript. Could a final paragraph in the discussion highlight these uncertainties and discuss them in more detail regarding your results, and could you indicate on your figure 10, the likely course your results would take if you had considered these uncertainties? In a sense, the bars would become wider with a darker section highlighting your results (as they stand now), and a lighter section indicating possible "range" given the unaccounted uncertainties?

Dear Dr. Plach,
I have read your revised manuscript and, aside from some technical corrections that I enclose, I also offer the following reflections to your response that I would like to have your final response to:
1. You state in your response that "We performed all HO experiments beforehand with SSA. We also performed additional simulations with SSA to find the appropriate parameter values for our HO sensitivity experiments. However, we chose not to discuss the SSA experiments in detail to keep the manuscript concise. The idea behind using ISSM was to test the more advanced higher-order setup for paleo applications in a simplified setup." I believe the suggestion by the reviewer needs to be included, or argued against more substantially. A description, and perhaps a Table as suggested, can be lodged as a supplementary file to avoid clogging the main manuscript.
2. You wrote "Concerning the “parameter space” issue you mention. We performed additional SSA experiments, but only discuss two of these SSA experiments to keep the manuscript concise. We clarify how many and which additional SSA experiments we performed in the revised text. Again, although brevity is good, this does not suffice as a response. Hence, act, or argue against more substantially.
3. When the reviewer has an argumentation that end in "Please reformulate", then your response of "we added appropriate references" is non-informative and likely insufficient. Please, reformulate, or argue against more substantially.
4. In response to the reviewers request that "...I would like to see a figure with the inverted distribution(s) of these coefficients, since the perturbation of these coefficients is an integral part of the study." you presented such a figure. Have you considered including it in the manuscript?
I look forward to a final updated manuscript that considers the technical corrections and the four reflections that I have offered.