Dear Dr. Maden!

Thank you for revise the manuscript angeo-2019-97. Based on the opinion of both the reviewers, that have suggested major revision on your manuscript. I am going to send the manuscript to them again in order to hear their second opinion.

Dear Dr. Maden!

We have observed that the submitted version of the manuscript is quite similar to the previous one. So, I would request to you, kindly, up load the revised version of the manuscript including the tracked changes marked file merged with the responses to the reviewers.

Best regards,

Igo

Dear Dr. Maden!

I have received the comments from two reviewers, one of them has complained that you have not addressed its concerns properly. So, I am sending back the manuscript again in order to you address all concerns of the Reviewer #2 fully.

Best regards,

Igo

Dear Dr. Maden!

Thank you for revising the manuscript. The reviewer have pointed out important aspects that still need improvements. As the revision process is taking longer, please, take care in address properly all concerns from the reviewer in order to avoid further extension of the revision process.

Best regards,

Igo

Dear Dr. Maden!

Thank you for revising the manuscript. I have revised your manuscript again according to the comments from the Reviewer #2 and I have found out that some topics were not addressed properly. Please, see as following my concerns and revise them before we send your manuscript for the production.

Best regards,

Igo
+++++++++++

1. Title: Please see again the comment #5 from the Reviewer #2. Please revise Line 282 accordingly.

2. Abstract: Although Constantinople is close to Anatolia, it is not correct to use data from Constantinople to investigate changes in Anatolia, without mention that the data come from Europe. If you think that the European data are important to the conclusions, revise throughout the manuscripts and include Europe/Anatolia elsewhere you mention the data, including Tables and statements. I have read the mistake, at least in Lines 89--102 and Line 103. Tables including their caption must be revised as well.

3. Introduction: Please, revise the aim of this work and make sure that the conclusions form your work match with the goals. It is very important to be clear about the novelty of the present work during the Introduction section as well. Please, see again the comment #1 from the Reviewer #2.

4. Figure 1: See again the comment #4 from the Reviewer #2. I would recommend including in the Caption of Figure 1 that Constantinople was always on the European side.

5. Conclusion: Again, I agree with the Reviewer #2 and the conclusions must be fully revised. Please, keep only the findings from your work, considering your discussion and that you are sure that your work has figured out.

6. Acknowledgements: I would recommend to you keeping only the first statement. So, the Copernicus production will include statements about the reviewers and Editor.

Dear Dr. Nafiz Maden!

I sincerely ask apologies for the delay in accepting your manuscript. But, in my option, there are several points that need to be addressed before sending the manuscript for the production. I have revised the reviewer comments/suggestion for the previous round of revision and I have also found out that your scientific argumentation is really poor and there is no evidence for some statements that you have written. I would like you to do a final careful revision of the manuscript and attempt to address all the concerns listed below. Please, if you need extra time, do not hesitate to contact me, but do not submit the revision before be sure that you have solved all points.

Major points:

1. Figure 1: Remove the modern border. It is at best misleading and contradicts what the author claimed in the previous rebuttal letters.

2. Figure 2: Remove the first panel for humidity and third panel  for agricultural development. They are not scientifically supported in this article and not relevant with their scientific results.

3. If the author still wishes to claim his result as a constraint for the medieval climatology, the author must show plot and visualize correlation of the local magnetic disturbance (with Turkish magnetograms) and local humidity or precipitation. Without such a figure based on the modern scientific data, the author's claims on climatology (L276-324) must be removed. Science must be developed based on scientific data and scientific evidence.

4. The author must clarify that they have not consulted the original historical documents but only compiled the existing catalogs. There are no originalities for these records, as the author has not conducted an original investigation. This must be clarified.

Minor points:

1. The title should be revised as ‘medieval’ => ‘Byzantine’. There are no Ottoman records. The author has only investigated Byzantine reports, not medieval Anatolia and Constantinople.

2.  P1L7-8: In this paper, it is reviewed the relationships between the aurora observations, past solar activity and climatic change in Anatolia during the medieval period. => In this paper, Anatolian aurora has been reviewed based on the existing catalogs. [NB the author has not conducted an original survey but compiled existing published catalogs.] 

3. For this purpose, it is presented two historical aurora catalogs for Constantinople, Anatolia 9 and Middle East regions at various dates by using historical texts, chronicles and other 10 auroral records. => For this purpose, historical aurora catalogs for Constantinople and Anatolia are compiled based on the existing catalogs and compared with those in Middle East regions. [NB, Again, the authors have not consulted historical documents] 

4. P3L64-65: However, these criteria actually contradicted auroral behaviour during the extreme space weather events (Kimball, 1960; Kataoka and Iwahashi, 2017; Kataoka et al., 2019; Kataoka and Kazama, 2019). => However, these criteria directly contradicted auroral behaviour during the extreme space weather events, as overhead aurora can extend down to ~25° in magnetic latitude (vs 40 – 50° in Anatolia) and the whitish aurora appears more equatorial side (Kimball, 1960; Kataoka and Iwahashi, 2017; Kataoka et al., 2019; Kataoka and Kazama, 2019). 

5. P4L77-79: The goal of this study is to compile a historical aurora catalog to analyse the past solar activity of interrelated social, economic and climate change impacts during the medieval period. => The goal of this study is to compile a historical aurora catalog based on the existing catalogs, in order to analyse the past solar activity during the medieval period. 

6. P4L80-81: Constantinople and Anatolia have not been studied up to now with regard to historical-climatological data and aurora observations. => Constantinople and Anatolia have only been peripherally discussed up to now with regard to auroral observations. [NB: the author has compiled this catalog based on the existing catalogs. So previous scholars have already known these aurorae.] 

7. P6L133: Harrak (1999) listed two aurorae records => Harrak (1999) and Hayakawa et al. (2017) listed two aurorae records 

8. P6L135, P7L141, P12L269, and P15L348: Amida (Turkey) => Amida 

9. P10L225: Constantinople and Anatolia during the medieval period. => Constantinople and Anatolia during the medieval period based on the existing catalogs. 

10. P11L235-236: They are the longest direct observational records available for studying solar and space weather dynamics. => That’s not true. What about the cosmogenic isotopes? Just remove it. 

11. P12L276-P14L311: Discussions on climatology => Remove it. Not supported by scientific evidence. 

12. P14L316-324: Remove it. Not supported by scientific evidence. 

13. Table 1: Sources => Existing catalogs 

14. Table 3: Giving a spot coordinate for Asia Minor is highly misleading. Remove it. 

15. Table 4: Reports 3 – 6 are not from the Middle East but from Byzantium. Remove them. 

16. Table 5: This is irrelevant to what the author has scientifically shown. Remove it.

Best regards,

Igo

Dear Dr. Maden!

Thank you for revising the manuscript. Now, I consider that the manuscript is suitable for publication in Annales Geophysicae. There is one only one correction to be done: Page 15 line 332-334. Please remove "Dr. José Valentin BAGESTON and anonymous referees for their thorough critical and constructive comments." A statement will be provided during the production.

Best regards,

Igo