the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Persistent Climate Model Biases in the Atlantic Ocean's Freshwater Transport
Henk A. Dijkstra
Abstract. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is considered to be one of the most dangerous climate tipping elements. From idealised model studies, it is known that the tipping behaviour is caused by a positive salt-advection feedback, which is strongly connected to the Atlantic Ocean's freshwater transport. In earlier model studies, using climate models of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects (phase 3 and phase 5), biases in this freshwater transport have been identified. Here, we show that these biases persist in CMIP phase~6 models, as well as in a climate model with an eddying ocean, and provide a more detailed analysis of the origin of the biases. The most important model bias is in the Atlantic Surface Water properties, which arises from deficiencies in the surface freshwater flux over the Indian Ocean. The second largest bias is in the properties in the North Atlantic Deep Water and arises through deficiencies in the freshwater flux over the Atlantic Subpolar Gyre region. Due to the biases, the Atlantic Ocean's freshwater transport is not in agreement with available observations and the strength of the salt advection feedback is underestimated. To better project future AMOC behaviour, an urgent effort is needed to reduce biases in the atmospheric components of current climate models.
- Preprint
(136833 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
René M. van Westen and Henk A. Dijkstra
Status: open (until 12 Oct 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1502', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Aug 2023
reply
Review of: “Persistent Climate Model Biases in the Atlantic Ocean’s Freshwater Transport”, by Van Westen and Dijkstra.
In this paper the authors study biases in the AMOC stability metric Fov, by analyzing two CESM simulations with different resolutions, as well as a large number of CMIP6 simulations. The authors conclude that the biases that existed in CMIP3 and CMIP5 persist in CMIP6. Furthermore, they point to several biases in the freshwater budget as likely culprits for these biases in Fov.
This is a very thorough analysis, and I commend the authors for the work they have done. That said, the depth of the analysis has gone at the expense of the readability of the manuscript; I have to admit --with some embarrassment-- that I have not been able to get past the first pages of the Results section, despite several attempts. In my mind, the information density is far too high to make this a comfortable read. To illustrate this point, page 4 alone refers to Fig. 1 (4 panels plus 7 insets), Fig. 2 (8 panels, each with two insets), and 5 figures in Supplemental. The total number of panels + insets covered on page 4 is 70. That is a lot of information to get one’s head around in the space of 30 lines.
I hope that the authors will reconsider simplifying the paper and improve its readability. The paper can be slowed down significantly, simply by taking more time to develop the material. Not by adding more information, but by more carefully walking the reader through the argumentation following the key results. I understand that it is a challenging task, but the authors should make an effort to boil down the figures to those that are most critical to the storyline. Relegating more figures to Supplemental would be an option, but it only works if they are indeed treated as being of secondary importance, with limited referencing in the main text to avoid distracting from the main storyline. Although the insets might be useful in some cases (after careful study, Fig. 2 started to make sense), in others they are definitely a distraction (Figs. 1, 3). The insets that are critical to the narrative deserve their own figure and should be described and referenced in the proper order.
It is possible that there is simply too much ground to cover for one paper, in which case the authors might consider splitting it up in two companion papers.
I apologize that I don’t have anything more substantial to offer at this point.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1502-RC1
René M. van Westen and Henk A. Dijkstra
René M. van Westen and Henk A. Dijkstra
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
145 | 70 | 12 | 227 | 8 | 6 |
- HTML: 145
- PDF: 70
- XML: 12
- Total: 227
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1