the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Carbon isotopes in the marine biogeochemistry model FESOM2.1-REcoM3
Abstract. In this paper we describe the implementation of the carbon isotopes 13C and 14C (radiocarbon) into the marine biogeochemistry model REcoM3. The implementation is tested in long-term equilibrium simulations where REcoM3 is coupled with the ocean general circulation model FESOM2.1, applying a low-resolution configuration and idealized climate forcing. Focusing on the carbon-isotopic composition of dissolved inorganic carbon (δ13CDIC and Δ14CDIC), our model results are largely consistent with reconstructions for the pre-anthropogenic period. Our simulations also exhibit discrepancies, e.g., in upwelling regions and the interior of the North Pacific. Some of these differences are due to the limitations of our ocean circulation model setup which results in a rather shallow meridional overturning circulation. We additionally study the accuracy of two simplified modelling approaches for dissolved inorganic 14C, which are faster (15 % and about a factor of five, respectively) than the complete consideration of the marine radiocarbon cycle. The accuracy of both simplified approaches is better than 5 % which should be sufficient for most studies of Δ14CDIC.
-
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
(5670 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5670 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1718', Anne L. Morée, 01 Sep 2023
Dear Butzin et al.,
Please find attached my review.
Yours sincerely,
Anne Morée
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Martin Butzin, 21 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1718', Andreas Schmittner, 01 Dec 2023
This manuscript describes results from a new implementation of carbon isotopes in an ocean model. The paper is well written, nicely illustrated and the conclusions are backed up with the evidence provided. I only have a few minor comments and leave it to the discretion of the authors how much they want to change the manuscript.
Line 197: The reconstruction by Kwon et al. (2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00388-8) includes the surface and could be used to compare with the model results there.
Line 218: The decomposition by Broecker and Maier-Reimer (1992) is problematic as it ignores the effect of differences in preformed d13C and PO4. Interior ocean d13C and PO4 include preformed components. For d13C the preformed component is impacted by air-sea gas exchange, whereas for PO4 it isn't. Thus d13C_BIO is not equal to d13C_rem (which doesn't include a preformed component). d13C_BIO doesn't include the correct biological preformed component of d13C either since it was calculated using PO4. In other words, this decomposition, although widely used, is pretty much useless to understand d13C.
Line 223: Since d13C_BIO (as calculated following Broecker and Maier-Reimer, 1992) includes effects of air-sea gas exchange (from preformed d13C), d13C_AS includes effects of biology.
Line 247: Why not run model with Suess effect included for a proper comparison to observations? Suess effect can be expected to decrease d13CPOC by about 2 permil (e.g. Fig. 8 Schmittner et al., 2013). What is the global difference (model-obs)?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1718-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Martin Butzin, 21 Dec 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1718', Anne L. Morée, 01 Sep 2023
Dear Butzin et al.,
Please find attached my review.
Yours sincerely,
Anne Morée
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Martin Butzin, 21 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1718', Andreas Schmittner, 01 Dec 2023
This manuscript describes results from a new implementation of carbon isotopes in an ocean model. The paper is well written, nicely illustrated and the conclusions are backed up with the evidence provided. I only have a few minor comments and leave it to the discretion of the authors how much they want to change the manuscript.
Line 197: The reconstruction by Kwon et al. (2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00388-8) includes the surface and could be used to compare with the model results there.
Line 218: The decomposition by Broecker and Maier-Reimer (1992) is problematic as it ignores the effect of differences in preformed d13C and PO4. Interior ocean d13C and PO4 include preformed components. For d13C the preformed component is impacted by air-sea gas exchange, whereas for PO4 it isn't. Thus d13C_BIO is not equal to d13C_rem (which doesn't include a preformed component). d13C_BIO doesn't include the correct biological preformed component of d13C either since it was calculated using PO4. In other words, this decomposition, although widely used, is pretty much useless to understand d13C.
Line 223: Since d13C_BIO (as calculated following Broecker and Maier-Reimer, 1992) includes effects of air-sea gas exchange (from preformed d13C), d13C_AS includes effects of biology.
Line 247: Why not run model with Suess effect included for a proper comparison to observations? Suess effect can be expected to decrease d13CPOC by about 2 permil (e.g. Fig. 8 Schmittner et al., 2013). What is the global difference (model-obs)?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1718-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Martin Butzin, 21 Dec 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Model code and software
FESOM2.1-REcoM3 source code with carbon isotopes Martin Butzin https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8169243
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
237 | 84 | 20 | 341 | 15 | 12 |
- HTML: 237
- PDF: 84
- XML: 20
- Total: 341
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Christoph Völker
Özgür Gürses
Judith Hauck
Peter Köhler
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5670 KB) - Metadata XML