Dear Authors
Thank-you again for your revised manuscript which is liked by both reviewers who have seen it. Here follow “Technical corrections”, firstly from a reviewer (whose comments I mostly agree with) and then from myself. Please address these in a final manuscript which you should then upload to the Copernicus / OS editorial system for publication. Please note that on publication all the comments from the review process will be available with the paper, also that the manuscript will be copy-edited and you should check that your intended meaning is preserved.
Thank-you for publishing in Ocean Science.
Yours sincerely,
John Huthnance (editor)

Reviewer comments
• In the abstract, SLP is mentioned in line 25, without being first defined at its first mention in line 16. Please make sure all abbreviations appear at first mention throughout the text.
• Figure 1. Could it be possible to add labels to the SST contours or a colorbar if they are in the same color scale? Why is SST only for the EBUS regions? Would it be better a global map of SST with boxes defining each EBUS? I don’t think the bathymetry is of any interest for this study, specially away from the regions of study.
• Lines 60-65. Here you establish the relationship between SST and upwelling intensity and report a higher S2N ratio between SST and Ekman transport. Could you add any reference to support these statements?
• Lines 76-77. I think it would be best expressed without repeating ‘the results’: Section 4 describes the relevant results, which are discussed…
• Line 83. ‘the 40-years’ doesn’t need the slash: the 40 years. This is a repeating issue throughout the manuscript.
• Line 88. Similarly, I think ‘with a dataset of 40-years length’ should be rewritten to something like: with a 40-year dataset or with a dataset of a length of 40 years
• Line 106. The text should be modified: offers a resolution of 2.5 degrees and covers the period
• Line 114. There should be a space between the magnitude and the unit: 100 km
• Section 3.1. The descriptions the selection of each dynamical point for each EBUS is appreciated, but I think it would improve if, for each subsection, you specified which point is UP1 and UP2. For example, for CalUS, between Cape Mendocino and Point Conception, which one would be UP1 or UP2. As these geographical features don’t appear in the maps, only being referred to as UP1 or 2, I think it would be useful to specified it in the text. (Editor – but I think UP1 and UP2 are labelled in the figure 2 panels in each case, although some of the dots are not very distinct. The text might refer to the respective panel in figure 2 in each case, especially as figure 2 is several pages later than section 3.1. For CalUS, HuUS and BeUS please say in the text which is UP1 or UP2).
• Lines 136 and throughout the text. There should be no space between the magnitude and the degree symbol (either angle or lat/long), and also no space between the degree symbol and N/S/E/W (e.g. 23°S).
• Line 156. Please consider replacing ‘(>30 years)’ to: With a minimum data length of over 30 years, a climate…
• Line 171. Here appears the definition of SLP but has already been mentioned above (line 102).
• Line 173. The authors mention Rykaczweski hypothesis, but there’s no description of it or any reference in the text. It is explained below in the discussion section.
• Line 200. I think the notation is wrong on my version of the file, with the average bar above the slash. In this case, I would also recommend removing the slash: within their respective uncertainty ranges for (Up) and (Oc).
• Figure 2. I would recommend the authors to select a different color for the land. It is in a very similar palette to the colorbar used for SST. Also, it is difficult to differentiate between the dynamical points (black dots) and the cruise data (also black dots). Please consider differentiating them. In the caption, please add the distinction between blue and red dots for subplots a and b.
• Tables 1 and 2. I think it would add value to the analysis if the statistically significant correlations were marked (either with an asterisk or in bold).
• Line 293. Please correct to: A cooling signal
• Figure 3. In the caption, you mention ‘the color scale indicates the trend values and the right margin of each graph’. Should this be changed to the color scale indicates the trend values at the bottom of the figure? Also, correct ‘black-dots’: Shaded area with black dots or Black-dot shaded areas
• Line 315. To avoid repeating, maybe remove second upwelling: These points include the upwelling centers…
• Figure 4. In the caption, you may just say asterisk instead of ‘with the symbol “*”’
• Lines 359 and 363. Consider replacing La Niña y El Niño with the cool and warm phases of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). If so, remove the description of ENSO from line 524.
• Line 363. No ‘appeared’ needed: there are two prominent peaks associated with El Niño around 1983 and 1997
• Line 394. No need to describe again EBUS abbreviation.
• Lines 395-399. Please replace ‘mb’ to mbar for the pressure units and specify that the values within parenthesis represent the spatial SD. (Editor – do you need to repeat the table 3 values in the text?)
• Table 3. Please replace ‘mb’ to mbar for the pressure units
• Line 405-408. I think the text would read better with a few modifications: Bakun proposes an intensification of the upwelling due to the increase of the continental low-pressure system driven by global warming. However, controversies arise from discrepancies between wind stress datasets and differences in the methodologies used.
• Line 484. Please consider replacing ‘coolest trends’ to largest cooling trends

Editor comments
Lines 94-95. Better “. . significantly greater sampling density . .”?
Line 111 near end and line 300. More usually “year-round”
Line 223. Better “. . a large averaging area . .”?
Line 284. Better “. . extensive non-significant regions . .”?
Line 296. “lower” –> “stronger”?
Line 299. “CanUS. Two . .” and omit “both”?
Line 304. Better “higher” –> “stronger”? Maybe also line 306 “lower” –> “weaker”
Line 321. “the DW1. In the Atlantic, . .” Likewise lines 324, 325, 328; “on” –> “in”
Figure 4 caption last sentence. “resalted” – “marked”?
Line 359. More usually “The existing hypotheses . .”
Line 362. Better to omit “there are”.
Line 386. More usually “upwelling-favourable”
Line 412. “significant increases . .”
Line 416. “decreasing” –> “decrease”
Line 422. “average” –> “averages”
Line 467. “. . showing a trend of -0.30ºC/decade . .” or . “. . showing -0.30ºC/decade . .”
Lines 469-470. Move “from observational and model data” forward to after “concluded”?
Line 478. “a weaker trend due to . .”?
Line 485. “average” –> “averaging” or “averaged” and line 486 “average” –> “averaged”.
Lines 506-508. Delete the repetition.
Line 541. “on” –> “in”.
Line 556-558. After “,” there are two verbs “we examined” and “was also tested”. Please reduce to one verb.
Line 568. “higher” –> “stronger”. Also “. . and intensification is slightly stronger . .”; does this apply in both oceans?
Lines 574-575. Please see the OS data policy https://www.ocean-science.net/policies/data_policy.html where “The best way to provide access to data is by depositing them (as well as related metadata) in FAIR-aligned reliable public data repositories” and “In rare cases where the data cannot be deposited publicly (e.g., because of commercial constraints), a detailed explanation of why this is the case is required.”
Line 584. “Acknowledgements”