Dear Bette and all,

My apologies for the delay in sending these comments.
You have already seen the email we sent from the coordination side.
I have the following comments on your manuscript directly:

1-/ The second response to reviewer #3 does not seem to reflect on the question, is that a copy/paste mistake?
2-/ In the Abstract and beginning of the manuscript you are relating all the time to "Tier 1" simulations. However, these are only defined on page 4 of the current version of the manuscript. Please reword to avoid this. This also connects to the general comment sent earlier through Julia Hargreaves.
3-/ Page 8, line 306 "Antarctic ice-sheets is" singular/plural form?
4-/ I do not understand the sentence on page 11, first line "Albedo ...forcing"
5-/ I have the same particular comments than Julia Hargreaves on the ESGF distribution and standards in your paragraph 6. Also the same issue in specifying the conditions for checking equilibrium which are vague and difficult to find in the present manuscript.

Best wishes,
Didier (R.)
P.S.: the only box I can tick is "reconsider after major revision" even though this may not reads as so major ...

Dear Bette and all,

The previous comment I had on reviewers #3 response is attached as an image to this feedback. The question is dealing with uncertainties in the vegetation patterns and your answer is related to the number of sensitivity experiments following reviewer #1. I might be wrong, but it looks to me you have not answered the question asked. The reviewers asked for a critical assessment of the datasets for vegetation reconstructions.

Best wishes,
Didier (Roche)