Dear authors,

Thanks again for your submission to TC/TCD and for the effort you have put so far in the revision of the manuscript. I agree with the reviewers that the manuscript has improved considerably.

The paper touches a few controversial points: ice-core data accessibility, d18O as a proxy for temperature, Holocene climate variability and synchronicity of glaciation of the Tibetan Plateau. The discussion with the reviewers has been really interesting and I have found it very instructive.

It is clear to me that the paper is not going to end the controversy in these topics. It does not need to. My view is that it is worth to put forward hypothesis, in this case to reconcile Tibetan Plateau ice cores interpretations, as far as there is a balanced discussion that includes competing hypothesis.

I am asking the authors to check again the reviewers comments and make sure that the manuscript incorporates a balanced discussion. I don’t mean that the authors have to strengthen their hypothesis and include more references. I mean that the authors present with more clarity the different views and what is the evidence underlying them. Reviewer #1 highlights the interpretation of d18O as proxy for temperature. Reviewer #2 challenges the derived Holocene climate variability and synchronicity of glaciation derived from the Chongce glacier.

In addition, the discussion of the dating of the bottom samples at the Guliya ice cap will benefit from a reference to the recently accepted paper from Tian Lide et al in GRL.

Dear Authors,

Thank you for considering in detail the comments from the reviewers. I believe that the manuscript has improved considerably and it is ready for publication.

Sincerely,
Carlos.