Dear Dr. Flores-Aqueveque,

After reading the Reviewers' comments as well as your responses, I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in Climate of the Past after minor revisions.
Could you please upload a manuscript with track changes, so that the way you answered the Reviewers' concerns is clearly visible?
Looking forward receiving your revised manuscript.

All the best,
Laurie Menviel

Dear Dr. Flores-Aqueveque,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript.
Please find a few minor points below to consider before final publication.
Looking forward receiving your manuscript.
Best regards,
Laurie


Figure 3: Is it needed? Isn’t that the same information as show in Figure 1?
P16, L. 6: Figure 3 does not show 21C projections.

Figure 4: Both reviewers were a bit critical of that figure, and I think it is still a bit difficult to read. The change between LIA and CDW is not obvious, particularly with respect to the stars. Since, in the models, the meridional wind is only significant on the eastern and western sides of the SPSH (i.e. the winds are mostly zonal elsewher), this figure can sometimes be hard to interpret, or maybe not appropriate.
Would it make more sense to show wind as vectors instead?
Adding the 21C data on top while the shading shows LIA-CDW is questionable. Would it make more sense to make an additional figure with only the 21C data (or 21C as anomalies from CDW)?
Should the domain be extended to the west as the SPSH is “cut” in some of the plots?

I also wonder if the description in the text is accurate:
P17, L.28-29: “The SPSH expansion during the CWP period is accompanied with weaker meridional winds in front of northern and central Chilean coast at annual scale and during austral summer.” It seems to me like there is a dipole pattern for most models, with stronger northward winds on the southeast side of the SPSH (~30S-35S), and weaker winds north of that.

Figure 5: The stars are a bit small and hard to see, and the upper stars are missing in DJF. Please amend the legend to “CWP” for magenta.

Minor Points:
P18, L.12: change to “models fail in representing the position”
P19, L. 16: change to “the numerical simulations analyzed here…”
P19, L. 20: “A comparison of our results with these previous studies..”
P19, L. 20: “that the models we have considered here represent…”
P19, L. 21-22: Please reformulate that sentence: “However, simulations are not in agreement with the position of STJ and its variations. “

P20, L.8-9: “Generally, a similar feature is observed in all models, but with different magnitude (Fig. 2S). “
P22, L.28: Please remove the comma after “results”

Ps, page and line numbers refer to the version with tracked-changes.

Dear Dr. Flores-Aqueveque,

Thank you for submitting a revised version of your manuscript entitled "South Pacific Subtropical High from the late Holocene to the end of the 21st century: insights from climate proxies and general circulation models". I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication in Climate of the Past.

Best regards,
Laurie Menviel