|My comments from the first review have mostly been addressed satisfactorily; I just have a few remaining comments that primarily involve further minor clarifications or additional details that will make the arguments easier to follow. |
There are also several typos and errors in grammar in the revised text. See lines 17-18, 194, 243, in the Al/Be uncertainty for sample MHS3 in Table 1, 296, 312, 314, 331 (2 typos), 336.
Line 55: „Through this comparison, we compare...“ is unnecessarily wordy.
Lines 58-59: Are you talking about the whole Mediterranean, or just near your field area?
Line 60: What period of tectonic tranquility? Is that related to the transgression/regression of the Mediterranean shoreline?
Line 74: What kind is “its kind”?
Results section: Do the 21Ne concentrations that overlap within uncertainty of zero cause you some concern? Could they imply that the samples have lost 21Ne through reheating?
Lines 196-197: “where it is unclear what is the diffusion length-scale” is unnecessarily wordy.
Lines 197-198: Reference for this statement?
Lines 213-214: Please state what the ratios are for EJC3 and EJC5 (not all readers will know what the expected ratio should be for a sample with a simple exposure history).
Line 234: Why do you use the term “reached an equilibrium” if presumably these nuclides are still decaying? Or do you mean that muon production has resulted in an equilibrium between new production and decay in each nuclide’s concentration?
Table 1: The column [21Ne_cos] shows sample numbers rather than concentrations. This must be fixed. Please also add a footnote that explains what uncertainties you are reporting for each column.
Line 251: I prefer to see a single number with its uncertainty, rather than only seeing the minimum and maximum values from several samples. The former gives a far clearer picture of the precision of measurement and reproducibility among different samples.
Line 271: Please add “thermochronologic” to “cooling ages”.
Line 275: Even though the Suez Rift is not labelled in any of your figures (as I already asked), I’m guessing that the Feinstein et al. results are more relevant to your study than the Morag et al. results. Such details would be helpful to add. Do the Feinstein et al. samples occur within your field area?
Please label the Negev Desert on a map.
Lines 328-329: Which samples are you summarizing here? Chert pebbles from modern outcrops or from the Miocene deposits? I can’t follow how this range of values relates to what you show in Table 2. Please explain separately the range of rates from the outcrop samples and from the Miocene deposits. I understand that calculating the paleo-erosion rates is not as straight forward, but given that your discussion and conclusions focus on your interpreted changes in erosion rates, these numbers should be clear from the main text. (And if you are not convinced that the uncertainties you report capture the real uncertainty in the results, this could be a point to discuss in more detail.)
Lines 329-330: Given the importance of this corroborating evidence, I suggest you add some details concerning the erosion rates reported by Matmon and Zilberman and references within.
Line 352: Why mention the Morag at al. results here and not the Feinstein et al. results, especially given that the latter seems to be closer to your field area? As mentioned above, more details about those locations would be very helpful. I suggest adding the study locations of Morag et al. and Feinstein et al. to your location maps as well so that readers can more easily follow your arguments.
Lines 354-356: This final sentence of the Discussion is not a complete sentence. I also don’t follow the final conclusion you are making. It seems like the surface uplift history has enough uncertainty that you cannot rule out a tectonic driver for increased erosion/exhumation during the middle Miocene, but you also cannot rule out the role of differing climatic conditions. Okay, I see you get to this in the Conclusions, so perhaps just delete this final sentence, especially because it would be important to present your summary information on the climate history before making concluding remarks about which may be the driver.
Lines 361-369: This should be in the Discussion section, not the conclusions.
Lines 391-394: I suggest either deleting these sentences or moving them into the Discussion. They do not make for a strong ending to your conclusions.