This manuscript presents interesting data on the ages of copper-bearing minerals from hypogene ore deposits in the Atacama desert in Chile. The results have important implications for regional climate history and so should be of interest to environmentalists as well as economic geologists. The writing is not bad considering that English is not the primary language of the authors. I have made minor suggestions for improvement on an annotated copy of the text.

The analytical work is extensive but important documentation is lacking and error propagation is questionable. Since all the Pb and U measurements were made together, the 207Pb/206Pb and 238U/206Pb data must be correlated, but correlation coefficients for all the U-Pb data are set to zero in the tables. Errors are reported on only 207Pb/206Pb and 238U/206Pb ratios, making it impossible to calculate the correlation values, which could be calculated from the formula: rho = (%SigX^2  + %SigY^2 - %Sig(X/Y)^2) / (2 * %SigX * %SigY) although it is better to calculate them in the data reduction program from the variance in X*Y. This will have the effect of rotating the error ellipses.

The data sets are presented on Tera-Wasserburg concordia plots blown up to the scale  of the data spread. This does not give a very good feel for the reliability of the results. Most data sets have a limited spread near the Y axis, meaning that Pb is weakly radiogenic and the scope of each diagram is different. The ages are very young meaning that the intersections with the concordia curve, which define the ages, are well beyond the scope of the figures (the intersection would be at infinite 238U/206Pb for age zero). I suggest that the authors include at least one large-scale composite plot so the reader can get a better idea of the distance between the data and the concordia intersections.

Significance of the Y-axis intercepts is worthy of discussion in the manuscript. Regression on the T-W plot defines an initial 207Pb/206Pb ratio as well as an age. The initial ratio is more constrained than the age. Many, if not most, initial ratios from carbonates and  phosphates accord with the simple crustal Pb growth model of Stacey and Kramers, which was defined using Pb from large ore deposits with diverse ages. This model predicts a 207Pb/206Pb ratio of about 0.84 for the late Cenozoic, which accords within error with most of the data sets.  Significant deviations are almost always toward lower 207Pb/206Pb values as seen here for 3 of the samples. These could be due to mixing with radiogenic Pb released from the breakdown of other minerals during formation of the dated minerals. Are there any coeval high-Pb minerals in the assemblages that could be used to measure a more precise initial Pb ratio that could anchor the isochrons? The ratios that agree within error could be averaged and used to anchor individual isochrons giving more precise ages. Even using an artificial number with no error should result in ages that are accurate relative to each other, provided one can assume the same initial ratio.

I do not understand the rationale of expanding the data errors so as to get MSWD values near 1 (lines 167-169). Errors on the individual ratios should be determined based on the numbers of counts. MSWD values serve to check whether scatter can be accounted for by measurement errors alone or whether it may be affected by other factors such as late disturbance. A moderately high MSWD does not invalidate data, it just serves as a warning of possible complications.

It is not logical to add the dispersion of results on the standards to each other or to the sample. Adding in quadrature assumes that deviations are random, whereas biases are systematic. The sample data should be corrected linearly for the Pb/U bias determined using a matrix-matched standard. The ablation biases on monazite, titanite and zircon chosen as standards should be quite different from each other as well as the samples.  Although there are no chrysocolla standards there are many carbonates that qualify (although there are also differences between carbonates like calcite and dolomite). The normal procedure is to use NIST only for correcting 207Pb/206Pb mass bias. A primary matrix matched standard is then used to correct 206Pb/238U, which is affected by both mass and ablation bias. A different secondary matrix matched  standard is then run to confirm the correction of the first. This is especially important for spot analyses where ablation biases can be tens of percent and vary with pit depth. Ablation bias should be minimized (although not eliminated) by performing scans rather than spot analyses (Dix et al. 2021 doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2021.120582).  I suggest that the authors analyze some carbonate standards, such as WC1, under the same conditions as their samples. Since the ages are so young, they can tolerate relatively large errors and still be useful but it is a shame to degrade such extensive results by poor calibration. In any case, the results on standards should be explicitly reported (e.g. give the measured 238U/206Pb ablation bias found for them).

Raw data files (usually CSV files) should be reported as Supplementary Data so results can be recalculated in future when we might have a better understanding of bias correction.

Don Davis

This paper examines the dating of chrysocolla in supergene-enriched deposits located in the Coastal Cordillera of Northern Chile at three different sites ranging from 22 to 24.30 degrees latitude. The authors utilise U-Pb dating of chrysocolla from various locations, and at each location, the altitude differs in the samples collected. The results indicate a range of ages for the formation of Chrysocolla from 8.4 million years ago (Ma) to 0.005 million years ago (Ma). The ages appear to vary more with altitude than with latitude, with older ages found at higher altitudes and the majority of younger ages located below the current fog level. As a result, the authors conclude that recent supergene enrichment in the Coastal Cordillera is related to the occurrence of fog from the coast.

The paper is well-written and features excellent figures. I recommend publication after making some modifications to the main narrative, specifically to clarify the discussion surrounding climate and the differences between meteoric and groundwater-sourced supergene processes. Additionally, some minor edits should be implemented throughout the rest of the manuscript.

The discussion regarding the climate in the study area needs to be clearer and more concise. Instead of suggesting that the hyperaridity in the Atacama had a singular onset, it should be noted that multiple authors have documented alternating periods of wetter and drier conditions since the Miocene. The cyclical nature of dry and wet phases resulted in multiple episodes of supergene mineralisation, sedimentation, and surface formation. It is essential to emphasise that the studies often date climatic fluctuations rather than identify a specific moment when aridity began. This clarification will help explain the variations in ages presented in Figure 1. Although this point is mentioned in the discussion, it would be more explicit in the introduction.

The manuscript should more clearly distinguish between meteoric-water-dominated supergene enrichment and groundwater-dominated supergene mineralisation. Meteoric-water-controlled supergene enrichment represents a hydrologically open system characterised by the sustained downward percolation of rainfall, vertical copper transport, and precipitation occurring near the water table. This process is dependent on climate and can be associated with specific precipitation thresholds, such as approximately 120 mm per year. Consequently, K-Ar dating of alunite can be used to examine variations in arid and semi-arid climatic conditions, as the formation of alunite is linked to the circulation of meteoric fluids.

Groundwater-dominated supergene systems are hydrologically constrained, meaning that copper is redistributed locally within the oxidation zone by saline groundwater, capillary fluids, or evaporated brines. This redistribution can occur without the need for meteoric recharge to the water table and is not limited by the approximately 120 mm/yr precipitation threshold. Chrysocolla formation, as I understand it, is primarily influenced by solution chemistry under oxidising conditions and can develop in both meteoric and brine-dominated supergene environments. Consequently, using it as a direct climate proxy is problematic. This distinction is important for interpreting the climatic significance of the mineral assemblages discussed in the paper and could be explained more clearly in the text.

Minor correction.

Lines 74–75

• The statement that chrysocolla requires only meteoric water to be edited, and if stated, needs a reference.

Line 77

• Line 77: Edit to specify that alunite was dated in Puntillas, Coastal Cordillera by Sillitoe & McKee (1996).

Line 183

• Clarify the text to reflect that atacamite shows replacement textures after chrysocolla, rather than chrysocolla replacing atacamite.

Figure 12

• Add sample site names to the figure to help the reader interpret spatial relationships.

Line 307

• Remind the reader that the sample site “Michilla” is not used in the analysis.

Line 345

• Note that uplift rates along the Coastal Cordillera vary significantly along strike, and this spatial variability may be relevant to the discussion.

Check that all papers cited in the manuscript are included in the reference list.