The authors present a study that aims to address the uncertainty in simulated LGM climate, particularly where biogeochemical parameters are set to pre-industrial conditions. The study is very thorough, exploring a wide range of parameter combinations, sensitivity experiments corresponding to different physical and biogeochemical settings, and variable stoichiometry. I find the paper very interesting, as it highlights the large variance in simulated pCO₂ responses arising from different parameter calibrations under LGM forcings.

The authors show that, out of all combinations, iron flux exerts the most profound influence on marine biogeochemistry. However, it is important to distinguish the contributions of increased aeolian dust deposition and decreased sedimentary input, as they contribute oppositely to CO₂ drawdown.

Overall, I consider this study a valuable contribution to Earth System Dynamics, subject to the comments outlined below.

General comments:

The manuscript is well written in terms of the structure. However, it is heavily results-focused, with numerous numerical values presented, while the overarching message and broader implications are somewhat buried. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is mentioned in the Introduction, but this motivation is not revisited in the Discussion or future directions. Reconnecting the findings more explicitly to this framing would strengthen the manuscript.

Section 4.2 is too brief for such an important topic. There is little discussion in the context of previous studies, particularly regarding winds, which have been widely investigated, but also moisture diffusivity, which represents a relatively new perspective. A more detailed comparison with the existing literature would help better contextualise the findings.

Line 103: Why was higher moisture diffusivity chosen, and how does the wind pattern differ? An explanation is required here.

Line 315: No influence of winds? That is surprising. Providing some explanation would be useful here.

Lines 386–387: This statement appears somewhat speculative. A supporting time series figure could help substantiate this claim.

Specific comments:

Line 27: "Last Glacial Maximum" (LGM).

Lines 27-30: It would be worth mentioning the low CO₂ values explicitly, including how much lower they were and compared to which baseline.

Lines 30-31: Relevant references should be added for these processes (lower SST and higher solubility). The same applies to orbital parameters mentioned in Line 101.

Line 104: How was a 120 m lower sea level configured while keeping bathymetry the same? Since bathymetry is an important LGM-specific parameter (e.g., Nickelsen et al., 2015; Somes et al., 2017), some clarification would be useful.

Line 121: Typo "the".

Line 126: Last how many years?

Line 180: I may have missed the definition of '*-' used from here onward? What does it denote?

Section 3.1: Why is LGMFedep compared first with PIallbgc? Would it not be more appropriate to first compare it with one of the LGM simulations to isolate the impact within the same climatic background?

Line 344: Typo "Wighting"

Line 455: It would be worth mentioning the range of decline reported in other models and experiments.

Line 457-461: Why is this not compared with the previously simulated (and rather large) range of CO₂ drawdown from increased iron deposition?

Line 460: It would be worth referring to a figure here.

Review is provided as a PDF