Dear Dr Shi

Thank you for submitting your comments to the queries of the reviewers’ and the data review team in the open discussion. I now invite you to prepare a full response to the review comments as well as a revised manuscript. The comments from reviewers and the data review team cover many specific points, but I specifically look forward to the revisions of the methodological and data issues raised by the reviewers. For instance the SEA, as well as the used statistics need to be described in the method part (as noted by ref#1)

Also, I would like to see the answer to item 4 raised by ref#2 elaborated on. How is the verification affected by extrapolated data? Personally I would like to have a bit more explanation of this method (I'd like to see a comparison between trees that extend to 2000 and their corresponding extrapolated values). This is quite important if the shot-term trend in the tree-ring chronologies have undergone distinct changes during the last few decades.

I further recommend having a native English speaker going over the manuscript to enhance its readability.

Good luck and I'm looking forward to the revised version.

Regards
Hans Linderholm

Dear Feng Shi and co-authors

The two reviewers are both satisfied with the revised version of your manuscript. However, there is still some clarification needed regarding the data availability. Please pay close attention to the following requirements when revising the manuscript:

1) Expand the data availability section to explain that: Citations to the persistent identifiers for the original data used in this study are listed in Table S1.

2) Submit the primary outcome of the data analyses to a public repository and include the Data Citation. This includes (a) the detrended and infilled version of all tree-ring chronologies, (b) the resulting precipitation time series reconstruction with and without 9-year smoothing, (c) the IMFs of the reconstruction time series at multiple temporal scales (Figs 5 and S1), and (d) the reconstructed precipitation value for each grid point at a reasonable time resolution, possibly decadal.

3) Submit Table S1 as part of the data archive for this study

4) Double check that all of the “original data URLs” are correct. Note: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/471012693 is returns an error.

5) All of the URL links to the CMDC seem to land on the sample page. I suspect that it’s because I’m not a registered user. Please add an explanation to the data availability section to alert users that registration is required or whatever is needed to lower the barrier to finding the data.

Finally, the language needs some improvement to make it more readable. I suggest having a native English speaker looking over the manuscript.

I wish you the best of luck with the revision, and look forward to seeing the next version of the manuscript.

Regards
Hans

Dear Feng and co-authors
thank you very much for the revised version, and for making the required changes related to data availability. To finally accept the paper, can you just re-write the last passage in the Data avilability section (i.e. we have rather than we will, + the URL) so that it is clear that the data is available at the same time as the manuscript is published?
Thanks for your patience and good luck
Hans