Dear Author,

Your submission elicited many comments. We have now four referee's reports. While a referee recommended rejection and another acceptance after minor revision, I agree with the recommendation of the remaining two referees that your manuscript should be reconsidered after major revision. Please make a thorough revision along the lines described in the comments that you posted in the interactive discussion. It is critical that the methods are described in full, highlighting precision and uncertainties so that the non-experts can appreciate the results too.

The revised manuscript will undergo a second round of review.

Best regards,
Jean-Pierre Gattuso
BG editor

Dear Author,

Thank you for submitting a revised version of your manuscript submitted to Biogeosciences. I am now in receipt of two supportive referee's reports. Your manuscript can be therefore be accepted for publication after minor editorial revision (see below).

I look forward to seeing this paper published and thank you for considering Biogeosciences to publish these very interesting results.

Best regards,
Jean-Pierre Gattuso
BG Editor

-------------------
- Suggestion from referee #4: Please consider rounding values to avoid over-precision (e.g. too many significant digits on page 24)
- Suggestion from referee #4: for readibility Mm^3 could be replaced by 10^6 m^3 especially in the abstract
- Suggestion from referee #4: figure 11 is based on a unique value for future sea level rise, whereas it is uncertain. I think this uncertainty in future SLR could be easily integrated in Fig 11
- Replace "+/-" by "±"
- Acropora sp.: "sp." should not be in italics.
- Tables 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8: To improve readability, I suggest that you provide the full name of the location (or study site or study region; you might also want to use a consistent terminology) with the abbreviation in parentheses.
- Table 4: use mm yr-1
- Tables 7, 8, 10: 10^6 m3 km-2
- Fig. 4: add abbreviated study sites in parentheses.