Dear Markus Adloff,
many thanks for your revised manuscript. This is obviously a considerably improved version. You received two constructive referee reports for this revised version. One referee asks only for small specific changes. The other referee adresses more general aspects. One of his concerns is (quotation): "I am not sure that what the authors have to say about beta and gamma rewards the difficulties it has caused them. I also think there are difficulties with this analysis. For example, quoting the time-dependent changes in sensitivity seems quite risky, since it may well arise from an interaction of the
time-scales of the transient forcing convolved with climate and carbon-cycle timescales." Maybe you can downplay or even remove this part of the manuscript, or provide good arguments why to keep this part (especially concerning time dependent sensitivities)? Technical improvements: The font size for the colour code description of the maps should be enlarged.
I look forward to your second revised version. I think you will be able to provide this without too much more effort. I would like to thank you for your partience and endurance.
Best regards, Christoph Heinze

Dear Markus Adloff,
many thanks for your revised manuscript and the response to the two referees.
The paper has been controversally discussed. Both referees for the previous version have been much more positive than the referees in the initial phase.
In view of these more positive reviews and the discussion response by the authors, and also based on my own judgement, I think the paper should now be accepted for publication. The basic idea is a valid one. The paper may be discussed controversally in the literature also in future. This may not be a disadvantage. The authors of the paper may be encouraged to follow up on the thoughts provided by the reviewers in a separate manuscript.
Please, carry out a small technical correction: "CO2" in line 7 of the abstract should not be in italic font.
Best regards, Christoph Heinze