The salinity anomalies due to the biogeochemical processes in the Bohai Sea

Ji, Fengying; Xiong, Xunjun

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107

Preprints

18 Sep 2023

| 18 Sep 2023

Status: this preprint has been withdrawn by the authors.

The salinity anomalies due to the biogeochemical processes in the Bohai Sea

Fengying Ji and Xunjun Xiong

Abstract. Salinity has been classed as an 'Essential Climate Variable' by the Global Observing System for Climate since 2010 and its compatibility must be ensured to avoid spurious trends and discontinuities. Because of the lack of measurements, it is not well known that small variations in the relative dissolved constituents of coastal and semi-enclosed seawater result in changes in the Absolute Salinity S_A which is the salinity parameter of the International Thermodynamic Equation of Seawater – 2010 (TEOS-10 for short), and the changes in the Practical Salinity S_P that it results in, which is still served as the simplicity of Absolute Salinity in many studies, are even less well known. To clarify the salinities compatibility level in the semi-enclosed Bohai Sea, we analyzed the repeat in-situ measurements along the section from 1985 to 2020 and the near-synchronous field data from 2006 to 2007 in this sea, found the main relative composition anomalies are dominated by additional HCO₃⁻and Ca²⁺ which mainly originate from the suspension and redissolution of bottom sediments. They can increase the S_A by a maximum of 0.1 g·kg⁻¹ and raise the S_P of 0~0.04 PSS-78 according to the TEOS-10 algorithm and the mathematical model Pa08. Moreover, we parameterized the δS_A and δS_P with their uncertainties with/without considering relative composition variations in the Bohai Sea respectively. All the results may provide a reference for salinity research in semi-closed oceans.

This preprint has been withdrawn.

Received: 14 Sep 2023 – Discussion started: 18 Sep 2023

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 2386 KB)

Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
Preprint (2386 KB)

Download & links

This preprint has been withdrawn.

Fengying Ji and Xunjun Xiong

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2107', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Oct 2023

The authors utilized multi-year hydrographic survey data from a semi-enclosed coastal region to calculate the contributions of mineral dissolution to absolute salinity (S_A) and practical salinity (S_p). They concluded that carbonate dissolution from bottom sediments contributes up to 0.1g/kg to S_A and up to 0.04 to S_p.
This study might be suitable for a technical publication in the future. However, considering that the authors published a very similar study in 2021 (Ji et al., Ocean Science, V17, 909-918) — which encompassed the entire Chinese coast, including the Bohai Sea that this study focuses on — and that the conclusion isn't markedly different from the present work (i.e., carbonate dissolution contributes to the measurement anomaly), I struggle to see the significance of this newer manuscript. I question why it should be considered for publication in the same journal again. There's overlapping information with prior publications, a lack of critical information on water analysis, and weak reasoning (for instance, regarding carbonate dissolution).
Here are some general comments after reviewing the manuscript:
1. The methods section largely overlaps with the authors’ previous work and, in fact, with the second author’s prior work as well (Rich Pawlowicz, Deep Sea Research I, V101, 71-79). This indicates a lack of technological innovation.
2. In section 2.3, scant details are provided on how the water samples were collected, and there's an absence of data quality information. Considering that total alkalinity and pH were analyzed in 2006-2007, the application of the time series data from 1985-2020 is perplexing. Moreover, which pH scale was used? It's unlikely to be on the total scale, and the carbonate system analysis doesn't appear to adhere to the standard protocol. It's also surprising to note that the Lewis and Wallace reference is dated 2021 when the correct year is 1998. Additionally, there's a mysterious reference to Ryan (2014) that isn't present in the reference list. These oversights make evaluating the work challenging.
3. After data processing and modeling, the authors presented conceptual models, though I believe their intention was to provide quantitative models suitable for the two sets of salinity anomalies (Eq 15).
4. While their conclusion might be accurate, the reasoning behind carbonate dissolution is ambiguous and lacks a mechanistic explanation.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', fengying Ji, 17 Oct 2023
  
  While we appreciate the referee’s review work on our manuscript, we respectfully disagree.
  The aim of this work was to calculate the uncertainty in Bohai Sea salinity due to nutrients and inorganic carbon to clarify the compatibility and reliability of long time series of salinity as a climatic variable, which was not taken into account by either Ji et al. (2021) or Rich (2015) and could not been demonstrated by their data, although the methodology was similar to theirs. This study complements and extends Ji et al. (2021) and was therefore submitted to Marine Science.
  The following are responses to the referee comments:
  COMMENT 1: The methods section largely overlaps with the authors’ previous work and, in fact, with the second author’s prior work as well (Rich Pawlowicz, Deep Sea Research I, V101, 71-79). This indicates a lack of technological innovation.
  RESPONSE: We acknowledge the lack of innovation in the methods of this manuscript. However, the content of the study and the data used were not previously addressed, i.e., the compatibility of climatological change of salinity in the semi-enclosed Bohai Sea, and the results of this study can also serve as a reference for similar areas.
  
  COMMENT 2: In section 2.3, scant details are provided on how the water samples were collected, and there's an absence of data quality information. Considering that total alkalinity and pH were analyzed in 2006-2007, the application of the time series data from 1985-2020 is perplexing. Moreover, which pH scale was used? It's unlikely to be on the total scale, and the carbonate system analysis doesn't appear to adhere to the standard protocol. It's also surprising to note that the Lewis and Wallace reference is dated 2021 when the correct year is 1998. Additionally, there's a mysterious reference to Ryan (2014) that isn't present in the reference list. These oversights make evaluating the work challenging.
  RESPONSE: We are sorry for that this manuscript fails to clearly state that total alkalinity and pH were analyzed separately for the years 2006-2007 and 1985-2020. The measurements of MIIEP from 2006 to 2007 are a fragment of a long time series, but are superior in that they cover the entire Bohai Sea with high spatial resolution, whereas the repeat section is only located in the central Bohai Sea, but its continuous observation from 1985 to 2020 is the key to reliably document the ongoing changes of relative dissolved constituents in Bohai Sea. The data from the two observation series can complement and validate each other.
  In this work, pH scale is pH_T scale. All seawater chemistry data sampling and analysis are in strict compliance with the national standard of the People's Republic of China, GB 17378.4.
  The paper of Lewis and Wallace was published in 1998, the latest update of Version 3 of CO2SYS for MATLAB used in this work is in 2021. We will change the year of reference to 1998.
  We are sorry for our careless mistakes that the reference to Ryan (2014) isn't present in the reference list. Thank you for pointing this out.
  COMMENT 3: After data processing and modeling, the authors presented conceptual models, though I believe their intention was to provide quantitative models suitable for the two sets of salinity anomalies (Eq 15).
  RESPONSE: We did provide quantitative models suitable for the two sets of salinity anomalies which are different from previous study.
  COMMENT 4: While their conclusion might be accurate, the reasoning behind carbonate dissolution is ambiguous and lacks a mechanistic explanation.
  RESPONSE: We agree that this is a potential limitation of this work. The carbonate dissolution is demonstrated from the measurement while the reason and mechanistic explanation will be included in our next research program.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2107', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Oct 2023
Ji and Xiong conducted a study on salinity anomalies in the Bohai Sea and found that the main composition anomalies were dominated by additional HCO3- and Ca2+. I found that the manuscript is poorly written and lacks a comprehensive discussion of the major findings.
The authors mentioned “biogeochemical processes” in the title and mentioned sediment suspension and dissolution in the text without providing any evidence. The lack of evidence to support this argument would make this argument no sense.

The authors also mentioned in line 240 that the model for 𝛿𝑆A and 𝛿𝑆P was fitted, but where are the results?

The results section is actually a mix-up of results and discussion, and the discussion was poorly written. I cannot see any potential contribution to the field of marine chemistry. There are other comments as listed below:

Line 90. The sentence was repeated twice.
Line 109. The complete reference of Ryan 2014 is missing.
Line 111. How did you calculate Δ[NO3−] ?
Line 124. Remove “for short”
Lack of data availability statement in the manuscript
Line 149. How did you get ∆[CO32−], and ∆[HCO3−] ? I understand you can calculate CO3- and HCO3- using CO2SYS, but how did you get the delta values?
Line 166. Figure 3 shows ∆[HCO3−] not HCO3-. It seems like you interpret it as HCO3-.
Line 175. Which method of the three did you use to calculate 𝜹𝑺𝐀^?
Equation 14. what is S_r and S_SO?
Line 255. You mentioned that you characterized the salinity anomalies arising from specific biogeochemical processes. Which process did you characterize?
Line 165-170. Where is the ∆[CO32−] surface and bottom plot?
line 230. Do you have any evidence for no obvious biological activities below 10 ^oC?
Line 244. In summer, biological processes need to be considered.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', fengying Ji, 18 Oct 2023
  
  We appreciate the reviewer‘s comments on our manuscript, which made us realize that since we were looking at salinity from a physical oceanographic perspective, our manuscript really did not go far enough in discussing ocean chemistry.
  COMMENT 1: The authors mentioned “biogeochemical processes” in the title and mentioned sediment suspension and dissolution in the text without providing any evidence. The lack of evidence to support this argument would make this argument no sense.
  RESPONSE 1: The Bohai Sea is a typical monsoon semi-enclosed sea, the southwest monsoon prevails in summer, and the strength of winds and circulation is obviously weaker than that in winter, while more than 60% of the rainfall in a year is concentrated in this season, and 50% of the inlet runoff is also concentrated in this season, so there is a clear stratification of the water body, and salinity and nutrients at the bottom are significantly higher than that of the surface, whereas in winter, the main inlet runoff is basically cut off in a strong northward wind. In winter, the main runoff is largely cut off, and the strong mixing and stirring by the strong northward winds results in vertically uniform seawater temperatures, salinities, and nutrients, all of which are significantly higher than those in summer. These characteristics suggest that, in the absence of significant inputs from land-based sources, these nutrients should originate from sediment suspension and redissolution.
  
  COMMENT 2: The authors also mentioned in line 240 that the model for 𝛿𝑆A and 𝛿𝑆P was fitted, but where are the results?
  RESPONSE 2: The results are listed in the table 1.
  
  COMMENT 3: The results section is actually a mix-up of results and discussion, and the discussion was poorly written. I cannot see any potential contribution to the field of marine chemistry.
  RESPONSE 3: The working group for this study looked at salinity from a physical oceanographic perspective, and our manuscript really doesn't know enough about ocean chemistry.
  
  COMMENT 4: Line 90. The sentence was repeated twice.
  RESPONSE 4: We've removed the duplicate sentences.
  
  COMMENT 5: Line 109. The complete reference of Ryan 2014 is missing.
  RESPONSE 5: We are sorry for our careless mistakes and the reference to Ryan (2014) has been added in the reference list.
  
  COMMENT 6: Line 111. How did you calculate Δ[NO3-]
  RESPONSE 6: In the manuscript, [NO3-] is written as Δ[NO3-] in order to match the expression of inorganic carbon increment. Since there is no [NO3-] in the Standard Sea Water, Δ[NO3-] means [NO3-] .
  COMMENT 7: Line 124. Remove “for short”
  RESPONSE 7: we have removed them.
  
  COMMENT 8: Lack of data availability statement in the manuscript.
  RESPONSE 8: These data are currently limited to domestic researchers, and can be accessed by foreign research applications upon request to NMDIS
  
  COMMENT 9: Line 149. How did you get ∆[CO32−], and ∆[HCO3−] ? I understand you can calculate CO3- and HCO3- using CO2SYS, but how did you get the delta values?
  RESPONSE 9: We first calculated CO3- and HCO3- using CO2SYS, and subtract CO3- and HCO3- of Standard Sea Water from them to obtain their corresponding delta values..
  
  COMMENT 10: Line 166. Figure 3 shows ∆[HCO3−] not HCO3-. It seems like you interpret it as HCO3-.
  RESPONSE 10: Figure 3 does show ∆[HCO3−].
  
  COMMENT 11: Line 175. Which method of the three did you use to calculate 𝜹𝑺𝐀^?
  RESPONSE 11:   The third method in the manuscript.
  
  COMMENT 12: Equation 14. what is S_r and S_SO?
  RESPONSE 12:    S_r is the Reference Salinity of sea water sample. S_SOis the Salinity of Standard Sea Water.
  
  COMMENT 13: Line 255. You mentioned that you characterized the salinity anomalies arising from specific biogeochemical processes. Which process did you characterize?
  RESPONSE 13:    Sediment suspension and dissolution.
  
  COMMENT 14: Line 165-170. Where is the ∆[CO32−] surface and bottom plot?
  RESPONSE 14:   The ∆[CO32−] surface and bottom plot does not appear in the manuscript because its magnitude is significantly smaller than that of ∆[HCO3−].
  
  COMMENT 15: line 230. Do you have any evidence for no obvious biological activities below 10 ^oC?
  RESPONSE 15: This process is really not discussed here due to the lack of corresponding observational data.
  
  COMMENT 16: Line 244. In summer, biological processes need to be considered.
  RESPONSE 16: Due to the lack of biological observational data, this process is really not discussed here.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107-AC2
EC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2107', Xinping Hu, 14 Nov 2023

Dear author,
Due to major deficiencies pointed out by the two reviewers and the fact the authors replies did not address the questions in sufficient detail, I would like to discourage revision. Thank you for considering Ocean Science.
Sincerely,
Xinping Hu

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107-EC1
- AC3: 'Reply on EC1', fengying Ji, 15 Nov 2023
  
  Dear Xinping,
  Many thanks to the editors and reviewers for their advice on this manuscript, although it is with great regret that we have decided not to submit a revised manuscript.
  If it is convenient for you, please help us terminate this submission process.
  Sincerely,
  Fengying
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2107', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Oct 2023

The authors utilized multi-year hydrographic survey data from a semi-enclosed coastal region to calculate the contributions of mineral dissolution to absolute salinity (S_A) and practical salinity (S_p). They concluded that carbonate dissolution from bottom sediments contributes up to 0.1g/kg to S_A and up to 0.04 to S_p.
This study might be suitable for a technical publication in the future. However, considering that the authors published a very similar study in 2021 (Ji et al., Ocean Science, V17, 909-918) — which encompassed the entire Chinese coast, including the Bohai Sea that this study focuses on — and that the conclusion isn't markedly different from the present work (i.e., carbonate dissolution contributes to the measurement anomaly), I struggle to see the significance of this newer manuscript. I question why it should be considered for publication in the same journal again. There's overlapping information with prior publications, a lack of critical information on water analysis, and weak reasoning (for instance, regarding carbonate dissolution).
Here are some general comments after reviewing the manuscript:
1. The methods section largely overlaps with the authors’ previous work and, in fact, with the second author’s prior work as well (Rich Pawlowicz, Deep Sea Research I, V101, 71-79). This indicates a lack of technological innovation.
2. In section 2.3, scant details are provided on how the water samples were collected, and there's an absence of data quality information. Considering that total alkalinity and pH were analyzed in 2006-2007, the application of the time series data from 1985-2020 is perplexing. Moreover, which pH scale was used? It's unlikely to be on the total scale, and the carbonate system analysis doesn't appear to adhere to the standard protocol. It's also surprising to note that the Lewis and Wallace reference is dated 2021 when the correct year is 1998. Additionally, there's a mysterious reference to Ryan (2014) that isn't present in the reference list. These oversights make evaluating the work challenging.
3. After data processing and modeling, the authors presented conceptual models, though I believe their intention was to provide quantitative models suitable for the two sets of salinity anomalies (Eq 15).
4. While their conclusion might be accurate, the reasoning behind carbonate dissolution is ambiguous and lacks a mechanistic explanation.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', fengying Ji, 17 Oct 2023
  
  While we appreciate the referee’s review work on our manuscript, we respectfully disagree.
  The aim of this work was to calculate the uncertainty in Bohai Sea salinity due to nutrients and inorganic carbon to clarify the compatibility and reliability of long time series of salinity as a climatic variable, which was not taken into account by either Ji et al. (2021) or Rich (2015) and could not been demonstrated by their data, although the methodology was similar to theirs. This study complements and extends Ji et al. (2021) and was therefore submitted to Marine Science.
  The following are responses to the referee comments:
  COMMENT 1: The methods section largely overlaps with the authors’ previous work and, in fact, with the second author’s prior work as well (Rich Pawlowicz, Deep Sea Research I, V101, 71-79). This indicates a lack of technological innovation.
  RESPONSE: We acknowledge the lack of innovation in the methods of this manuscript. However, the content of the study and the data used were not previously addressed, i.e., the compatibility of climatological change of salinity in the semi-enclosed Bohai Sea, and the results of this study can also serve as a reference for similar areas.
  
  COMMENT 2: In section 2.3, scant details are provided on how the water samples were collected, and there's an absence of data quality information. Considering that total alkalinity and pH were analyzed in 2006-2007, the application of the time series data from 1985-2020 is perplexing. Moreover, which pH scale was used? It's unlikely to be on the total scale, and the carbonate system analysis doesn't appear to adhere to the standard protocol. It's also surprising to note that the Lewis and Wallace reference is dated 2021 when the correct year is 1998. Additionally, there's a mysterious reference to Ryan (2014) that isn't present in the reference list. These oversights make evaluating the work challenging.
  RESPONSE: We are sorry for that this manuscript fails to clearly state that total alkalinity and pH were analyzed separately for the years 2006-2007 and 1985-2020. The measurements of MIIEP from 2006 to 2007 are a fragment of a long time series, but are superior in that they cover the entire Bohai Sea with high spatial resolution, whereas the repeat section is only located in the central Bohai Sea, but its continuous observation from 1985 to 2020 is the key to reliably document the ongoing changes of relative dissolved constituents in Bohai Sea. The data from the two observation series can complement and validate each other.
  In this work, pH scale is pH_T scale. All seawater chemistry data sampling and analysis are in strict compliance with the national standard of the People's Republic of China, GB 17378.4.
  The paper of Lewis and Wallace was published in 1998, the latest update of Version 3 of CO2SYS for MATLAB used in this work is in 2021. We will change the year of reference to 1998.
  We are sorry for our careless mistakes that the reference to Ryan (2014) isn't present in the reference list. Thank you for pointing this out.
  COMMENT 3: After data processing and modeling, the authors presented conceptual models, though I believe their intention was to provide quantitative models suitable for the two sets of salinity anomalies (Eq 15).
  RESPONSE: We did provide quantitative models suitable for the two sets of salinity anomalies which are different from previous study.
  COMMENT 4: While their conclusion might be accurate, the reasoning behind carbonate dissolution is ambiguous and lacks a mechanistic explanation.
  RESPONSE: We agree that this is a potential limitation of this work. The carbonate dissolution is demonstrated from the measurement while the reason and mechanistic explanation will be included in our next research program.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2107', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Oct 2023
Ji and Xiong conducted a study on salinity anomalies in the Bohai Sea and found that the main composition anomalies were dominated by additional HCO3- and Ca2+. I found that the manuscript is poorly written and lacks a comprehensive discussion of the major findings.
The authors mentioned “biogeochemical processes” in the title and mentioned sediment suspension and dissolution in the text without providing any evidence. The lack of evidence to support this argument would make this argument no sense.

The authors also mentioned in line 240 that the model for 𝛿𝑆A and 𝛿𝑆P was fitted, but where are the results?

The results section is actually a mix-up of results and discussion, and the discussion was poorly written. I cannot see any potential contribution to the field of marine chemistry. There are other comments as listed below:

Line 90. The sentence was repeated twice.
Line 109. The complete reference of Ryan 2014 is missing.
Line 111. How did you calculate Δ[NO3−] ?
Line 124. Remove “for short”
Lack of data availability statement in the manuscript
Line 149. How did you get ∆[CO32−], and ∆[HCO3−] ? I understand you can calculate CO3- and HCO3- using CO2SYS, but how did you get the delta values?
Line 166. Figure 3 shows ∆[HCO3−] not HCO3-. It seems like you interpret it as HCO3-.
Line 175. Which method of the three did you use to calculate 𝜹𝑺𝐀^?
Equation 14. what is S_r and S_SO?
Line 255. You mentioned that you characterized the salinity anomalies arising from specific biogeochemical processes. Which process did you characterize?
Line 165-170. Where is the ∆[CO32−] surface and bottom plot?
line 230. Do you have any evidence for no obvious biological activities below 10 ^oC?
Line 244. In summer, biological processes need to be considered.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', fengying Ji, 18 Oct 2023
  
  We appreciate the reviewer‘s comments on our manuscript, which made us realize that since we were looking at salinity from a physical oceanographic perspective, our manuscript really did not go far enough in discussing ocean chemistry.
  COMMENT 1: The authors mentioned “biogeochemical processes” in the title and mentioned sediment suspension and dissolution in the text without providing any evidence. The lack of evidence to support this argument would make this argument no sense.
  RESPONSE 1: The Bohai Sea is a typical monsoon semi-enclosed sea, the southwest monsoon prevails in summer, and the strength of winds and circulation is obviously weaker than that in winter, while more than 60% of the rainfall in a year is concentrated in this season, and 50% of the inlet runoff is also concentrated in this season, so there is a clear stratification of the water body, and salinity and nutrients at the bottom are significantly higher than that of the surface, whereas in winter, the main inlet runoff is basically cut off in a strong northward wind. In winter, the main runoff is largely cut off, and the strong mixing and stirring by the strong northward winds results in vertically uniform seawater temperatures, salinities, and nutrients, all of which are significantly higher than those in summer. These characteristics suggest that, in the absence of significant inputs from land-based sources, these nutrients should originate from sediment suspension and redissolution.
  
  COMMENT 2: The authors also mentioned in line 240 that the model for 𝛿𝑆A and 𝛿𝑆P was fitted, but where are the results?
  RESPONSE 2: The results are listed in the table 1.
  
  COMMENT 3: The results section is actually a mix-up of results and discussion, and the discussion was poorly written. I cannot see any potential contribution to the field of marine chemistry.
  RESPONSE 3: The working group for this study looked at salinity from a physical oceanographic perspective, and our manuscript really doesn't know enough about ocean chemistry.
  
  COMMENT 4: Line 90. The sentence was repeated twice.
  RESPONSE 4: We've removed the duplicate sentences.
  
  COMMENT 5: Line 109. The complete reference of Ryan 2014 is missing.
  RESPONSE 5: We are sorry for our careless mistakes and the reference to Ryan (2014) has been added in the reference list.
  
  COMMENT 6: Line 111. How did you calculate Δ[NO3-]
  RESPONSE 6: In the manuscript, [NO3-] is written as Δ[NO3-] in order to match the expression of inorganic carbon increment. Since there is no [NO3-] in the Standard Sea Water, Δ[NO3-] means [NO3-] .
  COMMENT 7: Line 124. Remove “for short”
  RESPONSE 7: we have removed them.
  
  COMMENT 8: Lack of data availability statement in the manuscript.
  RESPONSE 8: These data are currently limited to domestic researchers, and can be accessed by foreign research applications upon request to NMDIS
  
  COMMENT 9: Line 149. How did you get ∆[CO32−], and ∆[HCO3−] ? I understand you can calculate CO3- and HCO3- using CO2SYS, but how did you get the delta values?
  RESPONSE 9: We first calculated CO3- and HCO3- using CO2SYS, and subtract CO3- and HCO3- of Standard Sea Water from them to obtain their corresponding delta values..
  
  COMMENT 10: Line 166. Figure 3 shows ∆[HCO3−] not HCO3-. It seems like you interpret it as HCO3-.
  RESPONSE 10: Figure 3 does show ∆[HCO3−].
  
  COMMENT 11: Line 175. Which method of the three did you use to calculate 𝜹𝑺𝐀^?
  RESPONSE 11:   The third method in the manuscript.
  
  COMMENT 12: Equation 14. what is S_r and S_SO?
  RESPONSE 12:    S_r is the Reference Salinity of sea water sample. S_SOis the Salinity of Standard Sea Water.
  
  COMMENT 13: Line 255. You mentioned that you characterized the salinity anomalies arising from specific biogeochemical processes. Which process did you characterize?
  RESPONSE 13:    Sediment suspension and dissolution.
  
  COMMENT 14: Line 165-170. Where is the ∆[CO32−] surface and bottom plot?
  RESPONSE 14:   The ∆[CO32−] surface and bottom plot does not appear in the manuscript because its magnitude is significantly smaller than that of ∆[HCO3−].
  
  COMMENT 15: line 230. Do you have any evidence for no obvious biological activities below 10 ^oC?
  RESPONSE 15: This process is really not discussed here due to the lack of corresponding observational data.
  
  COMMENT 16: Line 244. In summer, biological processes need to be considered.
  RESPONSE 16: Due to the lack of biological observational data, this process is really not discussed here.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107-AC2
EC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2107', Xinping Hu, 14 Nov 2023

Dear author,
Due to major deficiencies pointed out by the two reviewers and the fact the authors replies did not address the questions in sufficient detail, I would like to discourage revision. Thank you for considering Ocean Science.
Sincerely,
Xinping Hu

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107-EC1
- AC3: 'Reply on EC1', fengying Ji, 15 Nov 2023
  
  Dear Xinping,
  Many thanks to the editors and reviewers for their advice on this manuscript, although it is with great regret that we have decided not to submit a revised manuscript.
  If it is convenient for you, please help us terminate this submission process.
  Sincerely,
  Fengying
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2107-AC3

Fengying Ji and Xunjun Xiong

Viewed

Total article views: 424 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
256	131	37	424	19	29

HTML: 256
PDF: 131
XML: 37
Total: 424
BibTeX: 19
EndNote: 29

Views and downloads (calculated since 18 Sep 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2023	75	21	4	100
Oct 2023	89	24	10	123
Nov 2023	17	7	1	25
Dec 2023	6	11	1	18
Jan 2024	14	5	1	20
Feb 2024	5	13	0	18
Mar 2024	11	13	1	25
Apr 2024	9	7	4	20
May 2024	4	6	2	12
Jun 2024	6	3	1	10
Jul 2024	9	4	3	16
Aug 2024	7	5	5	17
Sep 2024	2	2	4	8
Oct 2024	3	0	3
Nov 2024	2	4	0	6
Dec 2024	3	0	3

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 18 Sep 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2023	75	21	4	100
Oct 2023	89	24	10	123
Nov 2023	17	7	1	25
Dec 2023	6	11	1	18
Jan 2024	14	5	1	20
Feb 2024	5	13	0	18
Mar 2024	11	13	1	25
Apr 2024	9	7	4	20
May 2024	4	6	2	12
Jun 2024	6	3	1	10
Jul 2024	9	4	3	16
Aug 2024	7	5	5	17
Sep 2024	2	2	4	8
Oct 2024	3	0	3
Nov 2024	2	4	0	6
Dec 2024	3	0	3

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 423 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 423 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 13 Dec 2024

Short summary

Salinity has been classed as an 'Essential Climate Variable' by the Global Observing System for Climate since 2010 and its compatibility must be ensured to avoid spurious trends and discontinuities. This manuscript accurately characterize the salinity changes based on a long time series of measurements and to specify the compatibility level of long-term salinity change of the Bohai Sea with/without consideration of relative composition variations.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0