I agree with the two reviewers the the revised version of the manuscript has addressed most of the first round reviewers' comments, concerns and suggestions. I also agree that a major point remains to be addressed, however, concerning crater erosion and its potential impact on the estimate of average surface erosion rate derived from the crater inventory. I also agree with the second reviewer (who has seen this manuscript for the first time) that the impact of the manuscript could be greatly improved, especially among the geomorphology community, if mathematical terms and concepts used were better explained or defined. The reviewer gives an extensive list of corrections that should be made. The second reviewer also questions some of the statements made in the paper and suggests that they should be revised before the manuscript is accepted for publication. I support this point and ask the authors to carefully consider those suggestions. I do not consider, however, that these should lead to a major rewrite of the manuscript as suggested by the second reviewer. I will therefore ask to the authors to prepare a revised version of the manuscript that I will then assess for the appropriateness of the responses they have brought to the above mentioned points. I do not think, at this stage, that this will require a new round of reviews.

I wish to thank the authors for considering the comments and suggestions made by the two reviewers. I believe that they have responded to the main concerns in an appropriate manner (with two exceptions as detailed below). Review 3 commenters that parts of the manuscript (and to some degree the style the authors use to report their findings) will not appeal to some geomorphologists. Although there might be some truth to this, I believe that the authors have already greatly modified their manuscript to improve readability and accessibility of a very interesting (and unusual) approach to constrain global, time-averaged erosion rates. I therefore support publication of the manuscript with only minor modifications:
1 - In my opinion, the manuscript does not provide new constraints on whether erosion has globally increased over the Quaternary (as it only provides estimates averaged over a much longer period), contrary to what the title implies. Its main contribution is an estimate of long-ter erosion rate (over time scales that are much greater than the Quaternary). I therefore agree with Reviewer 3 that the title should be modified.
2 - The authors have not, in my opinion, responded adequately to the criticism put by Reviewer 3 concerning the ocean 10Be/9Be record which is a proxy for weathering rate and not erosion rate. This goes beyond the proper use of the terms erosion vs denudation, and should therefore be clarified in the text.

Many thanks for the minor revisions. I now recommend that the manuscript be published as is.

Dear Stefan,
your thorough revisions have convinced the editorial team and I am happy to let you know that manuscript has been accepted for publication.
Thank you once again for considering ESurf!
Very best wishes,
Andreas