The authors have done a good job of responding to the comments of the reviewers, and have had the manuscript checked by an English language editing service – THANK YOU!

About the only thing that they did not answer was the request of Reviewer #1 to give an extended discussion of the currents above and below the pycnocline. I agree with the authors that this would be a major undertaking and note that they plan to do this in a separate publication. I am happy therefore to accept the revised manuscript for publication in Ocean Science.

I did, however, note one or two minor errors/omissions:
1. There are several references to a paper by Yakushev et al (2005), but I couldn’t find this in the reference list.
2. Ostrovskii and Zatsepin (2011) is listed in the reference list, but does not appear in the text.
3. I think the caption to Fig 3 is still incorrect. Given the shape of the coastline, shouldn’t the alongshore axis be orientated at 320°, and the cross-shelf axis at 50°?
4. The caption for Fig 6 needs correcting now that it shows only two profiles, and not five. It should read: “Examples of two profiles[O2] j (z)…in the top left corner. Profile 145 was taken when the probe was moving up, and profile 146 when the probe was moving down….”

These changes can be made as part of the final edit by Copernicus in-house staff and I do not need to see the manuscript again.