This study investigates the variability of AMOC across scenarios, models, ensembles and time in CMIP6 models. The authors applied a novel method, and this part needs other reviewers’ expertise. It is a solid study, but it is difficult to see the key messages, and the implications and discussions of the results should be improved. At least the key points highlighted in the end should be better discussion in the middle sections. Some details are needed – for example, please elaborate on the initial conditions of the model ensemble (L51-53, Table 1), and the reason for incorporating the time dimension is unclear (L71-72).

1. I miss an interpretation of what I see in Fig. 1. The caption explains what each curve represents, but how to interpret the differences is unclear to me and not (well) discussed in the text.
2. In the same Fig. different y-axes are used, which is misleading. I would suggest to you use the same y-scale everywhere (the one from panel f), or at least the panel f scale in b,d,f and the panel e scale in a,c,e.
3. I think it is misleading to talk about the “large ensembles” and the “small ensembles” in many places, suggesting that differences in AMOC variability are due to ensemble size, while it is most probably to different models being analysed and more and less models available in the small and large ensemble. I suggest to use “The models with a large ensemble” vs “the models with a smaller ensemble”, or just ensemble A and ensemble B. This especially holds to the amount of decline. The much larger decline in the small ensemble is simply due to including models with larger AMOC sensitivity while the large ensemble by chance consists of 3 models that do not weaken much. This fact has nothing to do with ensemble size. On the other hand, when discussing the interactions I accept that ensemble size can be driving factor for differences in certain periods.
4. Please say what R T, S mean in the caption of Fig. 3. Figures should be stand-alone understandable without having to go bac to the text to see what they actually display.
5. Showing the interactions is of interest but I completely miss a physical picture of how I should interpret these interactions and what physical process they represent. What does it mean? Please explain in the text.
6. I would rephrase the conclusion between anthropogenic forcing intensity (which could be positive as well in terms of AMOC: aerosols!) and ensemble variance decrease or decrease of natural variability by saying there is a strong link between forced AMOC weakening and decrease in ….(l 318)
7. Discussion on line 319-320 and further down in 3.2.2. I see what you say in your figures, but don’t have a clear picture of what SRT interaction actually means in terms of physical processes, so this part is not meaningful to me (see also point 5).
8. My physical interpretation of 2.3 is that up to 2050 scenarios with stronger greenhouse forcing have smaller weakening in aerosol emissions and vice versa, making the impact on AMOC almost scenario independent, until the aerosol effect is gone, and we see the effect of greenhouse gas forcing alone.
9. Discussion around line 360. I disagree with the interpretation, see point 3.
10. Summary your point 2. I think what you see  in phase 2 is also forced by SSP scenarios, but as said before the net forcing on AMOC is reasonably equal for the scenarios. SSP126 forces stronger AMOC weakening than SSP245 and SSP585 in the first half of this century because the aerosols are faster removed from the atmosphere in this scenario.