Dear author,

Thank you for your thorough responses to all three reviewers. You are now invited to submit the revision of your manuscript, which I will give a last read before (hopefully) being able to accept the article for publication.

Most sincerely,

M. Crucifix.

There authors,

Based on the comments of the reviewers and my own analysis of the manuscript I am pleased to accept your article, subject to a number of technical corrections listed below. Note that the paper will further undergo copy-editing, but I would encourage you to carefully proof-read your version before you send it to the editorial office.


l. 16: This resultS

p. 3 l. 17: "the time scale of the negarive correlation seems _to be_ one or two decades"

l. 20 : "While we here used" -> "While we used here"

p. 4, l. 6 : "To examine the long-term variation" -> "variations"

l. 6: "... and intrinsic atmospheric circulation". Not sure "intrinsic" is the right word. What do you mean exactly ?

ll. 21 and 22 requires some rewriting.

p. 4, l. 21: "Although the reconstructed R comprises an annual value," -> "Athough R was with annual mean values" (is that what you mean ?)

then "because of the seasonal lag etc". Not very clear, reformulate. E.g.:

"As there is a seasonal lag between P and R, and also given that both the atmospheric circulation and P have a strong seasonal cycle, we analysed the seasonal mean observations of R, P, and Z500".


l. 26: "are best match for the Lena ad Ob Revers" : clarify. I do not understand that sentence.

p. 5. l. 2: employed -< used

p. 5 l. 16: similar to the observationS

l. 18: "there is difficulty in the P measurement" -> "measuing P is difficult" (what kind of difficulty are you alluding to?"

p. 5, l. 20: "There are also other influences such as air temperature, solar radiation, nitrogen and so on" -> withdraw "and so on" (this is redundant with the phrase "such as").

l. 25: "in each epoch" -> "across epochs" (is it what you mean?)

p. 6, l. 5 : "correltion." -> "correlation"

p. 8 l. 25 : "and a breaking of the negative" -> "and breaks the negative correlation"

p. 9, l. 1: "This imply" -> "This implies" ; same line : "patterN"

Legend of Figure 2 : "The significant levels at 90%" -> I believe these are confindence levels, not significant levels (significance is a reference to the p-value)."
a
Table 2 : "Values in bracket results from 5..." : you should be more specific. Is this the range spanned by the 5 (or 15) subsets ?