Dear authors,

Thanks for revising this manuscript.

Reviewer #1 still suggest major revision before publication is possible.

Reviewer #2 unfortunately could not review the manuscript again. For now I’ve taken over that role and checked if R#2 comments were properly addressed and added some small comment myself (below). I recommend providing a revised manuscript addressing the comments below and from R#1such that the manuscript can be considered for publication in Ocean Science.

All the best,
Sjoerd Groeskamp

----

L40 – Remove brackets around Mecking reference.

L125 – Appendix A is very good, but perhaps the main 2-3 sentence conclusion can be given in the text here for readers to be able to continue.

Eq 3 – You are here integrating between a depth and a density. Should the lower bound not be rho(x,y,-H(x,y)). Also, as given here, the units are kg / m / s, and not m^3/s as in Eq(1). So I’m not sure if the notation of this streamfunction equation is correct.

In sections 2.3 and 2.4, refer to the figures that come out of this analyses.

L220 – AMOC weakening begin in the north. Perhaps this informs us to help design/monitor EWS?

Around L297: “indicates weakening of the AMOC in northern latitudes
are more responsive to climate forcing than further south and that it takes longer to reach the same degree of weakening at 30◦S than further it does further north.”
I had two thoughts that might be worth considering for a discussion. 1) Does this influence the idea often said that larger emissions lead to faster and more weakening? This idea now seems latitude dependent. 2) Does 30S reach the same degree of weakening as you state? I think you mean as total percentage and not in rate? Please clarify for the reader.

L315 – Add reference?
Signal and noise in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation at 26° N
GD McCarthy, G Hug, D Smeed, KJ Morris, B Moat
Geophysical Research Letters 52 (7), e2025GL115055

Section 3.3 through to the discussion is long. If some reduction in length s possible, this would be worthwhile.

I think this paper could do with a two paragraph conclusion section summarising the main points (of which one is perhaps already written as the last paragraph).

Reviewer #2, major comment 1 is largely resolved. However you say that “We find that the offline calculated streamfunctions are weaker than their online counterpart and the AMOC strength is ~1-3Sv less. As our method focuses on percentage change, we find the threshold lines and onset largely agree between the online and offline versions.” Was one conclusion not that decline also depends on initial strength? Stronger AMOC declines more rapid? So then it would influence this, correct?