The Arctic Front and its variability in the Norwegian Sea

Raj, Roshin P.; Chatterjee, Sourav; Bertino, Laurent; Turiel, Antonio; Portabella, Marcos

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/os-15-1729-2019

Articles | Volume 15, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-15-1729-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

The Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS):...

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-15-1729-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 6

Research article

|

16 Dec 2019

Research article |

| 16 Dec 2019

The Arctic Front and its variability in the Norwegian Sea

Roshin P. Raj, Sourav Chatterjee, Laurent Bertino, Antonio Turiel, and Marcos Portabella

Download

Final revised paper (published on 16 Dec 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 22 Jan 2019)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Reviev on the paper “The Arctic Front and its variability in the Norwegian Sea” by Roshin P. Raj, Sourav Chatterjee, Laurent Bertino, Antonio Turiel, Marcos Portebella', Tatyana Belonenko, 28 Jan 2019
- AC1: 'Response to the comments of Referee 1', Roshin Pappukutty Raj, 29 Apr 2019
RC2: 'Review of "The Arctic Front and its variability in the Norwegian Sea" by Raj and colleagues', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Apr 2019
- AC2: 'Response to the comments of the anonymous Referee 2', Roshin Pappukutty Raj, 29 Apr 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Roshin Pappukutty Raj on behalf of the Authors (30 Jun 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (09 Jul 2019) by Ananda Pascual

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (10 Jul 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (18 Sep 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors study the variations in the position and intensity (in terms of horizontal temperature gradient) of the Arctic Front in the Norwegian Sea, on the basis of surface SST and surface winds remote sensed data as well as TOPAZ model outputs.
The analysis is conducted on a climatological scale, and explore the seasonal variability and the influence of atmospheric variability through composite analyses.

The manuscript is well structured, and clearly written. The mechanistic description proposed to link the influence of atmospheric variability and the morphology of the AF front at the Mohn Ridge is of great interest.
I therefore suggest to proceed with the publication of this manuscript, acknowledging some modifications, and suggestions listed below :

Major Comments :
1 ) In agreement, with previous reviewers I think that the singularity exponent approach should be better introduced. While it is good to retain technical details in the appendix, Sect 3.3 should better explain in simple terms :
** Why is this approach favored to simple horizontal gradients ? What does it brings in addition (for instance the answer to Referee #1 can be used in this regard). The reason to use this level of complexity is not evident and should be better justified.
** Why are the SE used for the horizontal, while the more traditional gradient approach is still favored for the vertical. Are there technical limitation to use SE for the vertical panels? If gradients are suited and sufficient for the vertical discussion, why aren't they for the horizontal ?
2) While the first section (climato and seasonal) address a large area, the second part seems restricted to the Mohn ridge, while there is seemingly enough material and tools to have a larger overview of the depicted mechanism. For instance, Fig9. depicts a substantial anomaly of circulation over the L-2 and L4 locations (Fig 4.) according to NAO phases. Is there any reason to restrict the detail insights to the Mohn Ridge ? Would the changes in circulation (Fig. 11) also affect the AF morphology in other areas evidenced in the first sections (eg. L2; L4) but not discussed in the second part ? Some justification should be given to explain this narrowing of the analysis from the first to the second part of the result section, unless the autors choose instead to extent spatially the discussion of the second part. In particular, Fig 12. describe te mechhanism in general terms, although this mechanism is discussed in details only for the Mohn Rigde.

Minor Comments :

P4.L27 "projected on a given wavelet" : rephrase, this sounds very vague.

P5l11 : remove 'the' in 'the parts'

P6L6 : 'north' -> 'northeast' ?

P8L30-32 : 'hinderance' or 'hindrance' ?

P9L13: I would refer to Figure 8 when mentioning the weakening of the front.

p15 the year for bib entry Umbert et al differs in the text and in the bibliography.

Fig 10. current speed ALONG or ACROSS the section ? Is that the absolute norm of this current component or is it simply going in the same direction all over the panel ? Isn't possible, if using the across-section current component (not the absolute value) to illustrate bot the NwAFC and the Lofoten basin cyclonic circulation ? This would help in describing the mechanism detailed in Fig 12.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (27 Sep 2019) by Ananda Pascual

AR by Roshin Pappukutty Raj on behalf of the Authors (21 Oct 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (06 Nov 2019) by Ananda Pascual

AR by Roshin Pappukutty Raj on behalf of the Authors (11 Nov 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

In this study we investigated the variability of the Arctic Front (AF), an important biologically productive region in the Norwegian Sea, using a suite of satellite data, atmospheric reanalysis and a regional coupled ocean–sea ice data assimilation system. We show evidence of the two-way interaction between the atmosphere and the ocean at the AF. The North Atlantic Oscillation is found to influence the strength of the AF and may have a profound influence on the region's biological productivity.