The four reviews for this paper overwhelmingly indicated this work was high-quality and of great use for filling in previously missing details about climate change from the last glacial maximum through the termination in Australia. It has implications for large-scale circulation changes and dynamics of the Earth's climate system on continental and larger scales. The authors have taken great steps to provide a prescription that answers the critiques and the suggested edits by all the reviewers. Their responses are well-weighted, and they are also reinforced by the climate literature and karst theory. I do not believe it would be useful to add a modelling study as requested by Reviewer #1, but agree this type of work will add value in the future (as the authors indicate they agreed with). The common ground therefore would be to mention this in the discussion or conclusions (as the authors have indicated they will), and take on board this very useful idea by following through on it with members of the community who are involved in forward/mechanistic modelling of karst, epikarst processes and climate/meteorology. The team on this paper are world-class experts in speleothem and palaeoclimatology science, so this suggestion is actually one they could (and probably should) address moving ahead. It will help in generating more robust calibrations and interpretations, but I do not want to digress further here. I suggest that the authors execute their stated revision plans before submitting the final version of the paper, and look forward to seeing the final version. Please also remember to state in the acknowledgements that this is a contribution to the SHAPE IFG and to lodge the data in a forum where it (including the age models and uncertainty estimates) can be easily accessed.