the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Global coarse grained mesoscale eddy statistics based on integrated kinetic energy and enstrophy correlations
Abstract. Recently, Jánosi et al. introduced the concept of a “super vortex proxy” based on an observation of strong correlations between integrated kinetic energy and integrated enstrophy over a large enough surface area. When mesoscale vortices are assumed to exhibit a Gaussian shape, the two spatial integrals have particularly simple functional forms, and a ratio of them defines an effective radius of a “proxy vortex”. In the original work, the idea was tested over a restricted area in the Californian Current System. Here we extend the analysis to global scale by means of 25 years of AVISO altimetry data covering the (ice free) global ocean. The results are compared with a global vortex data base containing over 64 million of mesoscale eddies. We demonstrate that the proxy vortex representation of surface flow fields also works globally and provides a quick and reliable way to obtain coarse grained vortex statistics. Estimated mean eddy sizes (effective radii) are extracted in very good agreement with the data from the vortex census. Recorded eddy amplitudes are directly used to infer the part of kinetic energy transported by the mesoscale vortices. The ratio of total and eddy kinetic energies is somewhat higher than found in previous studies. The characteristic westward drift velocities are evaluated by a time lagged cross-correlation analysis of the kinetic energy fields. While zonal mean drift speeds are in good agreement with vortex trajectory evaluation in the latitude bands 30° S–5° S and 5° N–30° N, discrepancies are exhibited mostly at higher latitudes on both hemispheres. A plausible reason of somewhat different drift velocities obtained by eddy tracking and cross-correlation analysis is the fact that the drift of mesoscale eddies is only one component of the surface flow fields. Rossby wave activities, coherent currents, and other propagating features on the ocean surface apparently contribute to the zonal transport of kinetic energy.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(103364 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(103364 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-231', Takaya Uchida, 29 May 2022
Janosi et al. apply their proxy-vortex method in diagnosing the effective eddy radius and westward propagation of mesoscale eddies globally. It has been know for some time that mesoscale eddies in the real ocean are larger than the Rossby deformation radius. However, what substitutes the Rossby radius as a better metric for describing their size has been a subject of debate. Their method of estimating the effective eddy radii will be a good addition to this debate and I recommend their manuscript for publication with only minor comments listed below.
- Sections 2.3 and 3.1: It would be interesting to have a physics-based discussion on why one would expect a temporal correlation between the area-integrated eddy kinetic energy and enstrophy;
- Equations 6 and 8: The notation of the mean of IEKE and IZ are denoted with an overbar while the temporal mean of the nominator is in angle brackets. I would suggest unifying the notation one way or the other for representing the mean;
- Line 243: In the later -> latter;
- Lines 322-323: The notation Eec is EKEec in Figure 6. Please unify the notation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-231-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Imre M. Janosi, 17 Aug 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-231', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Aug 2022
The paper presents a reasonable method for analyzing mesoscale eddies. It is based on an observed correlation between the enstrophy and kinetic energy and assumes that eddies have a Gaussian profile. The paper presents application of these ideas to global AVISO data. I am generally favorable of the work but have a few comments and questions that I hope the authors can address.
- In the abstract, please consider replacing "super vortex proxy" with "vortex proxy." As you mention in the text, the word "super" may be an overstatement.
- In Fig. 1, it is unclear from the caption if the quantity being visualized in (b) is |v_g-v'_g|^2 or |v_g|^2-|v'_g|^2 . Please be more explicit.
- On line 74, you compare the results to the dataset of Faghmous (2015). Is there a reason? Have you considered also using Chelton et al dataset? Can you please comment in the paper? Would doing so constitute too much additional work?
- In eqs. 1,2,3,4, do you use absolute or anomalous values? I suspect you are using SLA, but it is confusing when you use v'_g to represent anomalies in Fig. 1 and v_g (sometimes v, without subscript) to represent the same thing in the text and equations.
- In eq. 5, you essentially define R_eff as the ratio of the EKE to Z. But in eq. 2, R is a parameter representing the radius of the eddy. Can you please comment on the relation between R_eff and R?
- Line 122, the word "inevitable" is perhaps better replaced with another word? I could not understand the sentence.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-231-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Imre M. Janosi, 17 Aug 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-231', Takaya Uchida, 29 May 2022
Janosi et al. apply their proxy-vortex method in diagnosing the effective eddy radius and westward propagation of mesoscale eddies globally. It has been know for some time that mesoscale eddies in the real ocean are larger than the Rossby deformation radius. However, what substitutes the Rossby radius as a better metric for describing their size has been a subject of debate. Their method of estimating the effective eddy radii will be a good addition to this debate and I recommend their manuscript for publication with only minor comments listed below.
- Sections 2.3 and 3.1: It would be interesting to have a physics-based discussion on why one would expect a temporal correlation between the area-integrated eddy kinetic energy and enstrophy;
- Equations 6 and 8: The notation of the mean of IEKE and IZ are denoted with an overbar while the temporal mean of the nominator is in angle brackets. I would suggest unifying the notation one way or the other for representing the mean;
- Line 243: In the later -> latter;
- Lines 322-323: The notation Eec is EKEec in Figure 6. Please unify the notation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-231-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Imre M. Janosi, 17 Aug 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-231', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Aug 2022
The paper presents a reasonable method for analyzing mesoscale eddies. It is based on an observed correlation between the enstrophy and kinetic energy and assumes that eddies have a Gaussian profile. The paper presents application of these ideas to global AVISO data. I am generally favorable of the work but have a few comments and questions that I hope the authors can address.
- In the abstract, please consider replacing "super vortex proxy" with "vortex proxy." As you mention in the text, the word "super" may be an overstatement.
- In Fig. 1, it is unclear from the caption if the quantity being visualized in (b) is |v_g-v'_g|^2 or |v_g|^2-|v'_g|^2 . Please be more explicit.
- On line 74, you compare the results to the dataset of Faghmous (2015). Is there a reason? Have you considered also using Chelton et al dataset? Can you please comment in the paper? Would doing so constitute too much additional work?
- In eqs. 1,2,3,4, do you use absolute or anomalous values? I suspect you are using SLA, but it is confusing when you use v'_g to represent anomalies in Fig. 1 and v_g (sometimes v, without subscript) to represent the same thing in the text and equations.
- In eq. 5, you essentially define R_eff as the ratio of the EKE to Z. But in eq. 2, R is a parameter representing the radius of the eddy. Can you please comment on the relation between R_eff and R?
- Line 122, the word "inevitable" is perhaps better replaced with another word? I could not understand the sentence.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-231-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Imre M. Janosi, 17 Aug 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
213 | 48 | 13 | 274 | 6 | 3 |
- HTML: 213
- PDF: 48
- XML: 13
- Total: 274
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Imre M. Jánosi
Holger Kantz
Jason A. C. Gallas
Miklós Vincze
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(103364 KB) - Metadata XML