|“Spatio-temporal variations in HighSalinity Shelf Water production in Terra Nova Bay polynya,|
Comments on (the revised) ms “Spatio-temporal variations in High Salinity Shelf Water production in Terra Nova Bay polynya”
The quality of the revised paper is much improved – but there are still issues that needs to be addressed prior to publication; the work still appears somewhat immature, the new data are not sufficiently compared to historical data – e.g. to discuss the relevance of the salinity increase observed during the three year-long deployment period, results and discussion is still mixed, figures are not in order, the language level is not acceptable - and it admittedly annoys me as a reviewer that the native English speakers in the author list did not put more efforts into correcting the text before re-submitting.
In my opinion, the ms can be published only after significant revision, including all authors.
Specific comments – language issues are not addressed here.
L 38 – TNBP is not shown in Fig 1
L 51-52 Not correct as it now reads.
Fig 2 – Not needed, information is in Table 1
L103-104 – Mean tidal velocity is not of interest, please give mean speed and or tidal range.
L 107. To facilitate comparison with studies using absolut salinities, give a rough number for how big the difference betwee S_A and S_P is in this location.
L 109. You later use Tempearture to identify TISW?
Section 2.2 use either westerly or eastward – don’t mix.
Figures are not referred to in order
L. 126 Figure caption says it shows temperature correlation.
L. 127 Winds are synchronized with the wind?
L. 128 – Is temperature correlation relevant?
L. 140 Very hard to see the seasonality in Fig 5a. I suggest to complement with a panel showing the records from all years superimposed, e.g. starting in September, where the data are lowpass filtered and potentially presented as anomalies compared to the September value (i.e. all years start out at s’=0 in September)
L150 MWDW is not marked in Fig3
L 154 How can a bottom layer represent HSSW formation?
L 153 This year = what year?
L 160-163. I don’t think this is a valid conclusion – is this supported by the mooring data?. What about inter-annual variability? More vigorous ice-shelf circulation due to more HSSW-production? Given the differences in the spatial coverage of CTD-stations, the absence of TISW in based solely on fig 7 is not convincing. Include an improved (and zoomed) in version of the figure that was used in the response to my earlier comments and include also the two years with ISW coverage (you can then remove the CTD-stations from Fig 1 and use it to show the extent of the polynya)
L 168 What flow was nearly southward when?
L 169 Fig 5b does not support the statement that the flow is southwestwards during “periods with increased salinity” (I guess you mean the periods during which the salinity increases)
L 170 and around – Lots of confusing velocity measurements here.
L 123 How can a southward current give propagation in a northern direction?
L 175 The conclusion might be valid, but it does not follow logically from the text above it. (and I’d recommend presenting results in the results section and saving conclusions/discussions to those sections)
L 191 You previously argue that there is seasonality in the bottom record too – with a salinity increase in September.
L 195 What reduction in mixing?
L 197 “Longer over time” suggests a longer trend. You have three years of data.
L 200. Isopycnal - > homogenous
L 201. I’m not a statistician – but I find these correlations a bit questionable (especially the latter) – and I don’t understand why you introduce them? Figure 8a confirms that convection reached 273 m during the freezing season.
L 203 In other words – what follows has not been presented before? and I don’t understand what you mean by most rapid mixing
L 209 Specify that it is local HSSW production and that it is not responsible for salinity increase at depth.
L. 216-243 Speculate in the discussion section and present results here.
L 234 No, salinity at the bottom is clarly higher (Figure 8a) and not locally produced. Again, You do not need to look at the correlations to infer that, Figure 8a does the job.
L. 247 Do you take auto-correlation into account when calculating significance?
L. 249 when is the austral winter?
L 260 I the length of a polynya event also an indicator of HSSW formation rate?
L 265-270 Homogenous layer not necessarily caused by wind! Buoyancy flux from ice production. This section and the related figures needs to be improved/revised.
Section 3.3, 3.4, 4: Discussion and results are mixed - revise
L 293 Your current analysis does not show this. Include e.g. a map showing the upper HSSW limit from CTD-stations.
L 294 – You cannot use “in other words” when introducing a new statement!
L 303 – The arrows in Fig 11 are not convincing – they don’t show what you write in the text.
L 307 – Not sure I’d use the word “stable” here.
L 316 – not convincing.
Fig 11 No scale arrow
L 323 how can a basin be a path?
Section 4.3: This text in and the goal of this section is unclear – and the scale analysis is not convincing.
Section 4.4 Discussion in this section is not linked to this study. Why don’t you present the ice production estimates and compare – at least qualitatively - to your salinity increases/wind/polynya statistics?
L 365. I do not agree that you have answered the questions. 1 – not at all (you show that HSSW is advected, not that the circulation influences the production), 2 partly (but you could do better given the data at hand 3) maybe. Adapt the questions to the answers you do have/can answer, improve the presentation and recapitulate your answers here.
L 374. I miss a compilation of previous HSSW-observations, to put your observations in perspectives. Surely there are CTD-data available in archives/values in literature that you can use?
Figures can generally be improved – labels and scales are sometimes missing, figures are not referred to in order, data ought to be filtered before its plotted etc. I will not go into details, but let the authors have a first go on their own.
Use figure 11 to introduce the water masses in the area to readers not familiar with the hydrography here.