Both authors recommend that your paper is now suitable for publication. Referee 1 asks that you consider a small number of further points before publication.

I have looked at Referee 1's comments and how they relate to the current version of the paper. I've made some suggestions on how to interpret them below -- but they are only suggestions and I may have misinterpreted what concerned the Referee.

Please consider Referee 1's comments and provide brief responses. I expect then to accept the paper for publication.

L174-176 is about the fact that the geoengineering perturbation is much stronger than a Pinatubo-like perturbation. You have simply responded that it has to be -- perhaps a more useful comment to add to the paper would be to add this explicitly -- making the point that whilst drawing some analogy with e.g. Pinatubo-like impacts is useful, but has limitations (with the amplitude of the perturbation being one of them).

L202-205 Perhaps the referee is looking for some comment that this large temperature change is not unexpected given the large aerosol perturbation -- e.g. perhaps it is consistent with a simple scaling up of a Pinatubo like perturbation. You have made the point that the models being used have been validated in Pinatubo-like scenarios -- so perhaps no further comment is needed.

L307: The referee's comment was 'Strange to use this argument here, when UKESM1 and WACCAM6 produce absolutely different climates with 205 strongly different AMOC intensity.' about your sentence 'Reasons for these differences are beyond the scope of this work but
demonstrate that important inter-model differences still exist in state-of-the-art climate models.'. Perhaps that sentence at this particular point in the paper doesn't achieve very much. From my point of view the key overall point is that where your two model results disagree there is fundamental uncertainty -- you have said that at the end of your abstract and perhaps it should be re-iterated in the final section.

The further changes you have made to address previous referee comments seem fair to me and I am pleased to accept the paper for publication in ACP.