Major sources of North Atlantic Deep Water in the subpolar North Atlantic from Lagrangian analyses in an eddy-rich ocean model

Fröhle, Jörg; Handmann, Patricia V. K.; Biastoch, Arne

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/os-18-1431-2022

Articles | Volume 18, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-18-1431-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-18-1431-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 5

Research article

|

05 Oct 2022

Research article |

| 05 Oct 2022

Major sources of North Atlantic Deep Water in the subpolar North Atlantic from Lagrangian analyses in an eddy-rich ocean model

Jörg Fröhle, Patricia V. K. Handmann, and Arne Biastoch

Download

Final revised paper (published on 05 Oct 2022)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 16 May 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Review of Fröhle et al. "Major sources of North Atlantic Deep Water in the subpolar North Atlantic from Lagrangian analyses in a high–resolution ocean model"', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jun 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-313/egusphere-2022-313-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-313-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Patricia Handmann, 14 Jul 2022
  
  We want to thank Reviewer #1 for the thorough review of our submitted manuscript. The major topics mentioned by both reviewers were in some parts similar and helped to improve our manuscript. Please find the detailed response to your review in the uploaded pdf. We answered to every point raised by the reviewer seperately in the pdf. We appreciate the constructive comments and questions raised.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-313-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-313', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Jun 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-313/egusphere-2022-313-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-313-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Patricia Handmann, 14 Jul 2022
  
  We thoroughly thank Reviewer #2 for the review of our submitted manuscript. The major topics mentioned by both reviewers were in some parts similar and helped to improve our manuscript. We answered to every point raised by the reviewer seperately in the pdf. Please find the detailed response to your review in the uploaded pdf. We appreciate the constructive comments and questions raised.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-313-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Patricia Handmann on behalf of the Authors (14 Jul 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (18 Jul 2022) by Ismael Hernández-Carrasco

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (01 Aug 2022)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (04 Aug 2022)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (04 Aug 2022) by Ismael Hernández-Carrasco

Dear Jörg Fröhle,

Both reviewers were impressed with the efforts you made to address their comments. As you can see one of the previous referees is positive for the publication of the paper and satisfied with the revision. The other referee is basically happy with the paper but has raised some minor points which I believe can be useful for a further improvement of the discussion section. Thus I invite you to address this minor remark of the referee before we can finally accept the paper to be published in OS.

Regards,

Ismael Hernández

--------------------------
Reviewer 1 report:

The authors have appropriately addressed all points and comments from my previous review. I have no further questions and I recommend this manuscript for publishing in the present form.

--------------------------
Reviewer 2 report:

The revised manuscript has addressed most of my concerns. In particular, the water mass definitions for Eulerian field and particles have been clarified. The diapycnal mass flux associated with air-sea flux is also specified.

One last thing that is still lacking is on the discussions between the Lagrangian diapycnal flux reported in this study and the classical diapycnal mass flux from literature. In this study, it was concluded that “The second largest contribution originates from the mixed layer with 7.2 Sv (24%), where the Labrador Sea contribution (5.9 Sv) dominates over the Irminger Sea contribution (1.0 Sv).” However, as I mentioned in my previous comment, Petit et al (2020) reported 7 Sv of light-to-dense transformation due to air-sea flux in the Irminger and Iceland basins, in contrast with the current study. The different time period (2010-2019 for current study and 2014-2016 for Petit), as the authors pointed out in their response, might play a role. What other factors might contribute to the difference? Is it possible that the transformed waters from the Irminger Sea re-entrained into the mixed layer in the Labrador Sea? I am not asking the authors to conduct further analysis, but I do think this is an important issue that should at least be discussed.

Minor:
Lines 138-139: Please delete comma after “Even though”. Also, I think you only defined two (LSW and lNADW) NADW densities, instead of three.

Hide

AR by Patricia Handmann on behalf of the Authors (05 Aug 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (05 Aug 2022) by Ismael Hernández-Carrasco

AR by Patricia Handmann on behalf of the Authors (09 Aug 2022) Manuscript

Short summary

Three deep-water masses pass the southern exit of the Labrador Sea. Usually they are defined by explicit density intervals linked to the formation region. We evaluate this relation in an ocean model by backtracking the paths the water follows for 40 years: 48 % densify without contact to the atmosphere, 24 % densify in contact with the atmosphere, and 19 % are from the Nordic Seas. All three contribute to a similar density range at 53° N with weak specific formation location characteristics.