Sensitive dependence of trajectories on tracer seeding positions – coherent structures in German Bight backward drift simulations

Callies, Ulrich

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/os-17-527-2021

Articles | Volume 17, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-17-527-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-17-527-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 2

Research article

|

09 Apr 2021

Research article |

| 09 Apr 2021

Sensitive dependence of trajectories on tracer seeding positions – coherent structures in German Bight backward drift simulations

Ulrich Callies

Download

Final revised paper (published on 09 Apr 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 31 Aug 2020)
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: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Oct 2020
- AC1: 'Preliminary response to Referee 1', Ulrich Callies, 12 Oct 2020
- AC3: 'Final response to Referee 1', Ulrich Callies, 24 Nov 2020
SC1: 'Comments on os-2020-83', Jens Meyerjürgens, 13 Oct 2020
- AC2: 'Reply to Jens Meyerjürgens', Ulrich Callies, 15 Oct 2020
RC2: 'Accept with minor revisions', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Oct 2020
- AC4: 'Response to Referee 2', Ulrich Callies, 24 Nov 2020
SC2: 'Attraction does not imply convergence', Rodrigo Duran, 17 Dec 2020
- AC5: 'Reply to Rodrigo Duran', Ulrich Callies, 18 Dec 2020
  - SC3: 'Final comments on attraction does not imply convergence', Rodrigo Duran, 21 Dec 2020
    - AC6: 'Reply on SC3', Ulrich Callies, 14 Jan 2021

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Ulrich Callies on behalf of the Authors (26 Jan 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (01 Feb 2021) by Erik van Sebille

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (16 Feb 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I found the manuscript significantly improved. The objectives of the paper have been clarified and are now more realistic, the descriptions of the model and methodology have been expanded, and the description of results and associated figures are better organized and clearer.
I think that my main concerns have been addressed, and I recommend the paper for publication.

There are still some minor points listed in the following that I would like the author to consider before publication, but I do not need to see the final revision (lines in the following refer to the edited version):

- line 10 .the last phrase of the Abstract is not very clear, especially the word “vagueness” does not seem correct: ” indicating also vagueness of drift simulations being used.” I recommend to delete the phrase or to change it with someting like “ indicating that direct backward simulations of trajectories can be very sensitive and therefore unreliable”?
- line 54. Typo: “weakly” insted of “weekly”
- line 90, phrase not clear, may be a verb is missing?
- Line 110: “provides” instead of “tries to give”
- Section 2. I am still confused about using a hydrostatic model to provide estimates of surface convergence. Don’t you expect that vertical velocity estimates are not very reliable? Please add a comment
- Section 3. I think the presentation is much improved, but there is still some confusion. I think that there should be a brief discussion at the beginning of the Section that explains the rational behind the choice of examples. Are they driven by the type of FTLE structure? Or by the type of wind forcing? Or what else? Also the titles of the subsections “First example” and so on are a bit missleading, in the sense that in some cases there are several examples grouped together… It might be better to refer to the type of example, as indicated above
- Discussion on the choice of tau=250 h: I think that motivation, rational and sensitivity of this choice should be put up front in Section 3, not at the end and in the Discussion

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (18 Feb 2021) by Erik van Sebille

AR by Ulrich Callies on behalf of the Authors (26 Feb 2021) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

An analysis of simulated German Bight surface currents reveals linear structures along which water bodies of different origin converge. Identification of these non-stationary structures supports the interpretation of monitoring data; observations gathered at stations that are neighbouring but separated by a line of convergence may substantially differ. The analysis could also be helpful for organizing field campaigns such that new observations do not just duplicate information already available.