I would like to thank both reviewers for their constructive comments and also the authors for posting detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments.

The manuscript describes a set of sensitivity experiments designed to investigate the behaviour of the Antarctic Ice Sheet during MIS11. Both reviewers mention that the subject is interesting, but they also raise a significant number of concerns, and this is the basis for requesting major revisions.

Both reviewers highlight the insufficient level of detail in the methods section of the original version in terms of model description, clarification of boundary conditions, justification of parameter choices, and description of climate forcing. With regard to the latter point, the reviewers query the validity of some of the approaches used, request justification for the choices made, and importantly note the lack of detailed exploration of the role of ocean forcing.

The reviewers also comment on the lack of detailed analysis of the results, identifying statements that are not supported by evidence, aspects of the parameter space that are not fully explored, and processes that warrant further discussion, e.g. calving, surface melt, surface mass balance. I agree with reviewer 2, in that the current set of experiments do not provide conclusive evidence that the duration of the interglacial is the primary control on ice sheet retreat, and that a more in-depth investigation of the factors controlling ice sheet behaviour is needed to fully answer the research questions.

In their response, the authors provide a detailed description of the steps they propose to take to address the points raised by the reviewers. I therefore invite them to upload a revised version of their manuscript that addresses all points raised during the preliminary review process.

Kind regards,
Pippa Whitehouse

I would like to echo the comments of the reviewers and thank the authors for addressing the points raised during the first round of reviews. The authors have carried out additional numerical experiments, included a more thorough description of the model, revised many of the figures, and discuss the role of ocean forcing in more detail. There are extensive edits to the manuscript, this has significantly improved the flow of the writing and the overall structure of the manuscript is very clear.

Both authors recommend minor revisions and highlight a number of specific points that should be addressed. I also note below a few minor technical points that require clarification. The majority of the points request clarification of technical issues or highlight where methodological limitations should be acknowledged in the main text. Both reviewers comment that the size of some figures should be increased to make them more readable.

One reviewer requests additional evidence to support the statement that the results do not depend on model resolution. I note from previous correspondence that the authors were in the process of carrying out additional experiments at higher spatial resolution – the inclusion of results from these experiments in the supplementary material would be a useful addition to confirm your results.

I invite the authors to submit a revised version of their manuscript that addresses the points raised here and in the reviewer reports.

Kind regards,
Pippa Whitehouse

---
Minor points
Lines 4-6: check the logic of this sentence – statements are not really linked
Line 10-11: confusing use of ‘sea level reconstructions’ in two different senses
Line 283: I think the opening statement is based on experiments driven by different proxy records, rather than the interpretation of the proxy records themselves
Line 322: when describing experiment (ii) I suggest emphasising that 410 ka lies after the sudden increase in ocean temperature but before the maximum is reached
General: use of ‘this’ is occasionally ambiguous, e.g. lines 38, 191, 340
General: please clarify how you convert ice volume to sea level contribution
General: please clarify how you define WAIS collapse
Supp. Fig. S2: please clarify whether the forcings shown relate to glacial or interglacial conditions
Supp. Fig. S13: please clarify what is meant by ‘anomalies’

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing all comments during the review process. In particular, thank you for undertaking additional experiments in response to the original round of reviews and for completing the final revisions so efficiently. The final (very) minor technical correction required is a revision to the caption to table 4 to reflect the fact that Holocene values are no longer listed in this table. Aside from this, I am happy to accept this important study on Antarctic Ice Sheet change during MIS 11c for publication in The Cryosphere.

Kind regards,
Pippa Whitehouse