the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Diagnosing the AMOC slowdown in a coupled model: a cautionary tale
Abstract. It is now established that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is likely to cause a weakening, or perhaps a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). To investigate the mechanisms of this response in CMIP5 models, Levang and Schmitt (2020) have estimated offline the geostrophic streamfunction in these models and decomposed the simulated changes into a contribution caused by the variations in temperature and salinity. They concluded that under a warming scenario, and for most models, the weakening of the AMOC is fundamentally driven by temperature anomalies while freshwater forcing actually acts to stabilize it. However, given that both 3-D fields of ocean temperature and salinity are expected to respond to a forcing at the ocean surface, it is unclear to what extent the diagnostic is informative about the nature of the forcing. To clarify this question, we used the Earth system Model of Intermediate Complexity (EMIC) cGENIE, which is equipped with the C-GOLDSTEIN friction-geostrophic model. First, we reproduced the experiments simulating the RCP8.5 warming scenario and observed that cGENIE behaves similarly to the majority of the CMIP5 models considered by Levang and Schmitt (2020), with the response dominated by the changes in the thermal structure of the ocean. Next, we considered hysteresis experiments associated with (1) water hosing and (2) CO2 increase and decrease. In all experiments, initial changes in the ocean streamfunction appear to be primarily caused by the changes in the temperature distribution, with variations in the 3-D distribution of salinity compensating only partly for the temperature contribution. These experiments also reveal limited sensitivity to changes in the ocean's salinity inventory. That the diagnostics behave similarly in CO2 and freshwater forcing scenarios suggests that the output of the diagnostic proposed in Levang and Schmitt (2020) is mainly determined by the internal structure of the ocean circulation, rather than by the forcing applied to it. Our results illustrate the difficulty of inferring any information about the applied forcing from the thermal wind diagnostic and raise questions about the feasibility of designing a diagnostic or experiment that could identify which aspect of the forcing (thermal or haline) is driving the weakening of the AMOC.
-
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
(754 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(754 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2001', Ivica Vilibić, 12 Oct 2023
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of RC1 and its content was therefore removed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2001-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2001', Ivica Vilibić, 12 Oct 2023
The paper presents a simplified modelling effort for studying millenial changes in phases of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Obviously, using more complex model at these simulation timescales would take enormous amount of computational resources - through the manuscript the authors justify their choices in experiments and simplifactions with respect to the full climate models. The simulations provide some new insights to the topic, that are throughoutly discussed in the manuscript. The writing style and the English is also at high level, I have no objections. The only minor item to complain is introduction of Figure A1 and Figure A2 in the middle of the manuscript, which are not treated as annex or supplementary, so I suggest to include them as regular figures in the main text.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2001-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Justin Gérard, 19 Dec 2023
We appreciate the time you put into the review of the manuscript and the associated comments. We agree with the proposition of adding Figures A1 and A2 to the main text as regular figures.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2001-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Justin Gérard, 19 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2001', Alan Fox, 15 Dec 2023
Having foolishly typed my comments directly into the box on the form and lost much of it when an 'Intermediate save' failed, my comments are now in the attached pdf.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Justin Gérard, 19 Dec 2023
Thank you for your input and constructive comments on the manuscript. We agree to adapt the title of the article by including the recommendation. Lines 177-179 will be modified using the geostrophic velocity instead of the proposed pressure gradient to match the quantities introduced in the paper. A new figure containing the vertical profile of the geostrophic velocity anomalies and of the streamfunctions will be added to the document to help the reader understand the link between Figure 2 and the diagnostic expressed in Figure 1. We agree to split section 3.1 into two subsections to aid readability. Line 271 will be changed according to the mistake that you pointed out. We plan to drop Figure 5 as it does not add much valuable information to the text. However, since this oscillation results in substantial fluctuations in the diagnostic of thermal wind, we think that the brief examination can help some readers. Nevertheless, we will revisit and condense this paragraph at least to match the drop of Figure 5. Figures 4a and b contain only 2 hysteresis simulations each: one dotted and one solid. The ‘additional’ lines correspond to the return path of these simulations when the forcing is inverted. We will indeed add Figures A1 and A2 to the main text. For the final remark, we will provide a diagnostic of the different components of the circulation and discuss them appropriately.
We are happy you enjoyed the reading.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2001-AC2 -
RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Alan Fox, 19 Dec 2023
Thank you for your response, and for clearing up my confusion over Figures 4a,b. I guess the clue was in the title, 'hysteresis'. Still, I think it would be useful to explicitly distinguish which part of each line refers to the collapse and which the re-establishment of the overturning, either with colours and legend, or in the figure caption, or both.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2001-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Justin Gérard, 20 Dec 2023
Thank you for your comment. We plan to add a sentence to the caption of Figure 4 to improve clarity.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2001-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Justin Gérard, 20 Dec 2023
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Alan Fox, 19 Dec 2023
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Justin Gérard, 19 Dec 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2001', Ivica Vilibić, 12 Oct 2023
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of RC1 and its content was therefore removed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2001-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2001', Ivica Vilibić, 12 Oct 2023
The paper presents a simplified modelling effort for studying millenial changes in phases of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Obviously, using more complex model at these simulation timescales would take enormous amount of computational resources - through the manuscript the authors justify their choices in experiments and simplifactions with respect to the full climate models. The simulations provide some new insights to the topic, that are throughoutly discussed in the manuscript. The writing style and the English is also at high level, I have no objections. The only minor item to complain is introduction of Figure A1 and Figure A2 in the middle of the manuscript, which are not treated as annex or supplementary, so I suggest to include them as regular figures in the main text.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2001-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Justin Gérard, 19 Dec 2023
We appreciate the time you put into the review of the manuscript and the associated comments. We agree with the proposition of adding Figures A1 and A2 to the main text as regular figures.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2001-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Justin Gérard, 19 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2001', Alan Fox, 15 Dec 2023
Having foolishly typed my comments directly into the box on the form and lost much of it when an 'Intermediate save' failed, my comments are now in the attached pdf.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Justin Gérard, 19 Dec 2023
Thank you for your input and constructive comments on the manuscript. We agree to adapt the title of the article by including the recommendation. Lines 177-179 will be modified using the geostrophic velocity instead of the proposed pressure gradient to match the quantities introduced in the paper. A new figure containing the vertical profile of the geostrophic velocity anomalies and of the streamfunctions will be added to the document to help the reader understand the link between Figure 2 and the diagnostic expressed in Figure 1. We agree to split section 3.1 into two subsections to aid readability. Line 271 will be changed according to the mistake that you pointed out. We plan to drop Figure 5 as it does not add much valuable information to the text. However, since this oscillation results in substantial fluctuations in the diagnostic of thermal wind, we think that the brief examination can help some readers. Nevertheless, we will revisit and condense this paragraph at least to match the drop of Figure 5. Figures 4a and b contain only 2 hysteresis simulations each: one dotted and one solid. The ‘additional’ lines correspond to the return path of these simulations when the forcing is inverted. We will indeed add Figures A1 and A2 to the main text. For the final remark, we will provide a diagnostic of the different components of the circulation and discuss them appropriately.
We are happy you enjoyed the reading.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2001-AC2 -
RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Alan Fox, 19 Dec 2023
Thank you for your response, and for clearing up my confusion over Figures 4a,b. I guess the clue was in the title, 'hysteresis'. Still, I think it would be useful to explicitly distinguish which part of each line refers to the collapse and which the re-establishment of the overturning, either with colours and legend, or in the figure caption, or both.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2001-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Justin Gérard, 20 Dec 2023
Thank you for your comment. We plan to add a sentence to the caption of Figure 4 to improve clarity.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2001-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Justin Gérard, 20 Dec 2023
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Alan Fox, 19 Dec 2023
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Justin Gérard, 19 Dec 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
381 | 113 | 25 | 519 | 11 | 8 |
- HTML: 381
- PDF: 113
- XML: 25
- Total: 519
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Michel Crucifix
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(754 KB) - Metadata XML