Thank you for the revision. The reviewer seems satisfied by your response. I have a query related to one of the comments from the other reviewer (who was invited, but did not provide a second review).

"13) page 9, line 269 Compared with PI, temperature over the tropics is lower in the 6ka experiment, which contradicts with proxy data. -This is not correct, see, e.g. Lohmann et al. (2013, CP) for the SST data and modeldata comparisons

Thank you for letting us know Lohmann et al. (2013, CP). We changed the description to
"Compared with PI, temperature over the tropics is lower in the 6ka experiment, which is in the range of variability of the proxy data (Bartlein et al. 2011, Lohmann et al. 2013). “."

As I understand it (but I am not an expert in this!) the SST data in question are considered to be of very high uncertainty (Hessler et al 2014). Thus you may have unnecessarily weakened your statement here. Whether or not you agree with my appraisal of the SST data, I think it would be better to discuss SAT and SST separately here. For SAT, I think you can basically revert to your original statement.In relation to the SST I will just say that I look forward to your response!

Thank you for the revised manuscript. I just have a small number of technical corrections, but I like to check things are correct before acceptance, so here I do "minor revision" so that I can see the revision again.

1. Please either describe how the climate sensitivity of the model is estimated, or add a citation to where this is described.

2. What you wrote in the appendix is actually the kind of information that is central to a GMD paper and I think that the narrative would be clearer if the information were included in section 3.2. It is rather disjointed at present. It is also bit unclear exactly what the problem was that had to be overcome. ie it would be better to explain the problem as well as the solution. If you decide to retain an appendix, it needs citing in section 3.2 and shouldn't it be positioned at the end of the manuscript, just before the references?

3. Table 1. "Greenhouse" not "Greenhous"

Thank you for the revision. The discussion of the LGM set up makes sense to me now, so I am happy to accept the paper.

Just one thing - I think I was wrong about the Appendix placement! Sorry! Please check here and adjust your final version as necessary: https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/submission.html#manuscriptcomposition