Dear Dr. Breeden,

Thank you for fully addressing all reviewers' comments.
I strongly suggest you to submit a revised manuscript version where all changes made to your work are highlighted (italic, bold, coloured font), in accordance with your reply.
For instance, according to your reply to Q1, Reviewer 2: please show that you have expanded section 2.1 to improve model description in your manuscript, and so on. This will certainly help the reviewers.

I have just one quick question: in your reply to Reviewer 1, you mentioned a revision to Figure 2 (original manuscript), but in the end of your document it appears as fig. "1". I have compared with the manuscript's first version, and it is ok, but maybe you could mention this to the reviewer, ok?

Thank you again, and I am looking forward to reading your revised manuscript.
Leticia Cotrim da Cunha

Dear Dr. Breeden and Dr. McKinley,

Thank you again for your revised manuscript version. As you have read the referee's comments, the paper needs very few minor corrections, and once they've been addressed, I am happy to say your manuscript is accepted for final publication in Biogeosciences.

After reading again your reply, the corrected manuscript and the 2nd review document, I'd like to ask you the following (as a minor editor comment):

a) Figure S6 → is it meant to be Figure S5 in the present Supplementary Material? If not, could you please insert it (S6), reference it in the main text (manuscript), and then add the absolute values corresponding to the AMOC strength change, as suggested by the referee?

In case you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
With my best wishes
Leticia Cotrim da Cunha

Dear Dr Breeden

Thank you for your complete revised manuscript version, and also for thoroughly answering the second round of comments.
I am happy to say your manuscript is now accepted for publication in biogeosciences.
Best wishes
Leticia Cotrim da Cunha