Dear Authors
Thank-you again for your revised manuscript which has been reviewed again by one of the referees, who had very little comment (just the one regarding lines 183-184, see below). The other "Comments" below are my own. I should be very grateful if you would now address all these comments; I will make a final check before publication.
Yours sincerely
John Huthnance

Comments
Line 51. “CGCMs”?
Line 110. “. . available for only a relatively short time, limiting . .”?
Line 121. “. . is plentiful literature . .”?
Line 122. “. . referred to.” Or “ . . referenced.”
Line 123 delete final “,”. Line 125 delete “,”
Line 130. “and using”

Line 158. Delete first “,”. “. . with subscript oml . .”
Line 161 (Ref 2 commented). “. . production is linear in u, v, as long”?
Lines 168-169. “. . temperature just below the OML . .”?

Lines 183-184. (Referee 1 comment). I generally agree with the authors regarding their response to my Major Comment #1, but I do not think entrainment is a higher order term. Thus, I recommend the authors to replace “its contribution is of higher order and it might be” with “it is”.

Lines 182-188 (resuming Editor comments). I think the “new” and former text could be integrated better. As I understand it (i) entrainment velocity at the bottom of the OML, (ii) Qb and (iii) advection of ∂θoml/∂y are all in RESD but (i) is small. (iii) is not frontogenetic (I agree) but it could cause incorrect diagnosis of frontogenesis in the Eulerian view.

Lines 192-195. The main text needs to refer to the supplement here (c.f. Ref 2 comment “161” and later).
In relation to this and Ref 2 comment “242”, by analogy with time-averaging stratification, it occurred to me that for the climatology sharp gradients would be retained better by time-averaging y for given temperature (I assume you time-averaged temperature for given location). When there is (inter-annual) variability, time-averaging for a given location spreads out the temperature distribution. This bears on section 4 et seq.

Lines 257-261. This is clumsy with the additions to the text. Better “. . RESD is estimated from (3.4) where the left hand side ∂/∂t(∂θoml/∂y) is zero for climatology independent of time:
RESD = . . . (5.1).
Note that all terms . .”

Line 264. “at least” is unclear. “at least in part” or omit?
Line 278. “temporal” -> “time”
Line 284. Omit “respectively” (twice)
Line 301 (Ref 2 commented). I think θoml is a function of (respectively) t, t+Δt, t-Δt) and the denominator on the right-hand side should be 2Δt. (I guess then Δt = 1 day). You would need to change line 302 accordingly.

Lines 350, 377&379. It is strange to see a (Angola) Dome being identified with low SSH. I am not familiar with the area and associated names but some explanation would help assure similarly unfamiliar readers that there is not a mistake here.

Line 385. Better omit “up to”
Line 399. “. . points out the negative ∂wb/∂y and the positive stratification . .” to correspond with your response to the referee and the figure?
Line 410. “forcing and wind-driven mixing. Also . .” in accord with Referee 2 comment “360” and your response.
Line 438. Omit second “the”?"

Dear Authors
Thank-you for your revisions. Now I am suggesting just a few “Technical Corrections” for clarity / use of English. Then you should upload your final version directly to the Editorial system (i.e. it need not come to me again). There will be copy-editing and you should check that this keeps your intended meaning.
Thank-you for publishing in Ocean Science.
Yours sincerely
John Huthnance

Technical corrections.
Line 13. “northwestern” -> “northwest”
Line 18. “which leads” -> “leading”

Line 57. Insert “which” after “climate”?
Line 75. “.” -> “;”

Line 121. “Lagrangian” (spelling). Also line 180.
Lines 183-184. “. . terms, and the . . ∂θoml/∂y, are included . .” (location of “,”)

Line 276. “shift” -> “lag”?
Line 292. Delete 2nd “of”.
Line 299. “calculated as” (delete “,”)
Line 301. “where t . .” (delete “,”)

Line 328. Better “. . and b). In contrast with TILT . .”

Line 481. Better to omit “The”, thus “2017). Further”

Line 504. “. . discussion in the initial stage of” ?
Line 514. “References”