Dear authors,

thank you very much for these very complete reply letters. I have requested from the reviewers to provide an assessment of your replies. In case of positive reply, you will be invited to submit the revised manuscript.

Best regards

Joel Guiot

Dear author,
the revised version of your paper has been reviewed by two of the initial reviewers. One considers that your paper can be accepted as it and the second one would like to a few technical corrections as explained here:
1. The periodicity analysis revealed cycles similar to the cycles of sunspot or ENSO activity. To support such ideal, it’s better to provide more evidences. The periodicity analysis along is far from enough.
2. The Little Ice Age is generally abbreviated as LIA, instead of LAI or LA. Such expression should keep consistent in the MS (LA in line 1 of page 11).
3. Since the acceptable tree-ring chronology begins from 1660, it shouldn’t be a 414-year temperature reconstruction (in the MS title), and “Results and Discussions” should based on the credible period (1660-2015).

Please do these technical corrections. I think also that the spectral analysis is not convincing: the peaks are not very significant and it is impossible to conclude on the effect of solar activity and ENSO forcing. I think that you should remove section 3.5 as it brings very few to the paper.

Best regards
Joel Guiot

page 4, line 4: you do not use ARS after, then remove it.
page 8, line 3: Specify clearly that you will reconstruct MMT of April-July using the STD chronology only (because it is not clear that X in transfer function is the STD chronology
Remove Fig.8 as it is not called in the text.