the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Exploring the climate system response to a range of freshwater representations: Hosing, Regional, and Freshwater Fingerprints
Abstract. Freshwater, in the form of terrestrial runoff, is hypothesized to have played a critical role in past centennial to millennial scale climate variability by suppressing the production of deep-water in the North Atlantic. It may also play a central role in future climate change as ice sheet and glacier melt accelerates under anthropogenic climate change. In model studies of both past and future climate change, freshwater Hosing (i.e. injection across wide bands in the North Atlantic) is typically used as a means-to-an-end by inducing a strong thermohaline circulation and climate response, with little regard for the other roles that freshwater plays in a complex coupled climate environment. Herein, we evaluate the realism of Hosing relative to two more sophisticated freshwater injection methods, all under glacial boundary conditions: regional injection (allowing the relatively coarse-resolution climate model to transport the freshwater) and a novel freshwater fingerprint method. The latter approach distributes freshwater into an eddy-parametrizing ocean model based upon where it is transported to in a higher resolution eddy-permitting model. Here the COSMOS Earth system model is used as the eddy-parametrizing model, and a configuration of the MITgcm model as the eddy-permitting model.
This analysis address three primary questions. Firstly, where is freshwater routed at moderate versus eddy-permitting resolution? Secondly, does the freshwater fingerprint method allow the coarser resolution model to reproduce the net-results of eddy-permitting behaviour? Thirdly, how do climate impacts vary between different forms of freshwater injection?
Of the four outlets tested, we find that freshwater released at the Mackenzie River (MAK) outlet results in the most similar freshwater transport patterns at both the eddy-parametrizing and the eddy-permitting resolutions. However at eddy-permitting resolution there is a greater freshening of the contemporary Labrador Sea deep water formation region and mixing of freshwater into the Icelandic Sea. Similarly, Fennoscandian (FEN) freshwater discharge at eddy-permitting resolution results in more freshening of the Greenland-Iceland-Norwegian (GIN) Seas. Freshwater released from within the Gulf of St. Lawrence (GSL) demonstrates large-scale differences between coarse-resolution versus eddy-permitting distributions over the whole North Atlantic. At eddy-permitting resolution, GSL-sourced freshwater freshens the North Atlantic (specifically deep water formation regions important during cold glacial periods) more effectively than at eddy-parametrizing resolution. In COSMOS, freshwater deposited into the GOM results in a larger salinity anomaly at sites of deep-water formation in the northern North Atlantic than freshwater deposited into the GSL, whereas this relationship is reversed in MITgcm. When instead the freshwater fingerprint method is used in COSMOS, the relative strengths of GOM and GSL salinity anomalies in this deep-water formation region align with the eddy-permitting responses. However, for all injection locations considered, the pattern of MITgcm salinity anomalies are best matched by the COSMOS regional injection simulations and not the fingerprint injection simulations.
Hosing the North Atlantic in COSMOS results in stronger and earlier sea ice growth and surface cooling versus either regional injection or the fingerprint methods. Comparing regional injections to their respective fingerprint counterparts, injecting freshwater at the outlets results in earlier, but not faster, climate changes in the GIN Seas, mainland Europe, and GRIP ice core regions for the MAK and FEN regions relative to the fingerprint methods. For these injections, regional simulations show both a stronger and faster initial AMOC reduction than the fingerprint simulations. In short, for at least the COSMOS model, both the hosing and fingerprint methodologies are inferior to regional injection when considering salinity distributions alone but when considering AMOC and freshening of deep-water formation regions the fingerprint method corrects the response of the GSL and GOM outlets.
- Preprint
(9840 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(43270 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Review of egusphere-2023-2225', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Dec 2023
Love et al. explore the impacts of different meltwater sources around the North Atlantic on North Atlantic salinity anomalies and Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) transport in coarse resolution climate model and explore how these salinity anomalies compared to these obtained in an eddy-permitting ocean model. They further assess the differences in North Atlantic salinity and climate simulated by a broad meltwater source in the North Atlantic and meltwater fingerprinting obtained from the eddy-permitting model. For meltwater added in the Mackenzie river outlet or for meltwater coming from the Fennoscandian ice-sheet, the hosing, regional injection or fingerprinting give similar results, particularly after 50 years. Results are however quite different for meltwater input into the Gulf of St Lawrence or Gulf of Mexico.
The study is interesting and novel. Below I detail a few comments that should be taken into account before publication.
- The authors should synthesize all parts of the manuscript to make it easier to read. There are a lot of repetition throughout. The introduction needs to be re-structured to provide a more logical flow. At the moment, it seems like the introduction includes a summary and a longer description. In addition, the results are a bit difficult to follow. There are a lot of figures (or at least a lot of information in all the figures), and they are not necessarily mentioned when describing the results.
- Please be more precise, particularly in the abstract and conclusions. For example, L. 28-35 and 488-498, the broad hosing is compared to the other methods in a very subjective way. The response is faster by how much? The climate response is greater by how much and when? …
- Eddy-permitting simulations:
- It would be nice to show a figure in the supplement of the surface currents under LGM/YD conditions and how they differ with the pre-industrial run. This could be compared to a similar figure done with COSMOS.
- Was salinity restoring used in the simulations performed with the MIT-GCM? If yes, how would that impact your results?
- I understand that if other modellers want to re-do similar experiments, then the injection rates as shown in Figure 1 are relevant, but I find the salinity anomalies much more useful and would suggest to show the top 30m salinity anomalies (top 100m for GOM?) as figure 1 instead.
- I don’t understand the rationale behind taking a vertical integral to produce the injection rates (L. 179). I can see that for the GOM the freshwater seems to be advected very quickly into the sub-surface as no anomalies seem to be visible at 30m but anomalies are visible at 100m… yet without any clear justification salinity in the top ~100m should be shown and used,
- L157: it states that the simulations are run for 22 to 24 years, but on figure 1 the maximum years shown are 20.
4. COSMOS simulations
- It is stated that COSMOS exhibits centennial-scale climate variability under the boundary conditions chosen (L. 198-199). Isn’t that a problem for your study? Will the internal variability of the model affect the response to the meltwater injection?
-mIt would be nice to show the main surface currents in the NA in the control state, maybe on top on of the subplot of figure 3. That would help explain the simulated salinity anomalies.
L. 323 and 325: It is stated that 1dSv hosing results in greater reduction than MAK or FEN, but I think that the 1dSv are actually quite close to the MAK and FEN results. Maybe you simply wanted to say 2dSv?
L. 328: Why compare after 10 years?
L. 331 and elsewhere: It might be good to make a clearer distinction between the different locations of meltwater input and the time of interest. After 50 years, the MAK and FEN results seem similar to the broad NA hosing. However, the GSL and GOM are quite different until at yr 80-100.
Does this however mean that if one does not mind an uncertainty of 100 years, then the hosing is fine?
5. The impact on the AMOC of the different hosing locations is probably dependent on the location of deep-water formation in the North Atlantic. As such, the locations of deep-water formation in the COSMOS inter-stadial state should be shown. In addition, the strength of the sub-tropical and sub-polar gyres could impact the advection of salinity anomalies the locations of deep-water formation. The caveat associated with the 2 points mentioned above should be discussed.
L 429: this is a surprising result, that should be explained. Please also refer to a figure. The more effective salinity crossing is also not obvious from the figures.
6. Line by line comments
- Throughout: Replace “eddy-parametrizing” with “coarse-resolution” to avoid confusion
- Throughout: Please avoid starting sentences with “As well, “
- Abstract: Please define “AMOC”
- L. 39-40: Climate modelling studies should be cited here
- L. 53: References are needed
- L. 56-57: Remove “for a recent temperature reconstruction”
- L. 105: “direct hosing” needs to be replaced by something more appropriate and precise.
- 154: Please provide the exact coordinates of the meltwater input locations
- 216: ppmv
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2225-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ryan Love, 01 Feb 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2225/egusphere-2023-2225-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2225', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2225/egusphere-2023-2225-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ryan Love, 01 Feb 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2225/egusphere-2023-2225-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ryan Love, 01 Feb 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Review of egusphere-2023-2225', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Dec 2023
Love et al. explore the impacts of different meltwater sources around the North Atlantic on North Atlantic salinity anomalies and Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) transport in coarse resolution climate model and explore how these salinity anomalies compared to these obtained in an eddy-permitting ocean model. They further assess the differences in North Atlantic salinity and climate simulated by a broad meltwater source in the North Atlantic and meltwater fingerprinting obtained from the eddy-permitting model. For meltwater added in the Mackenzie river outlet or for meltwater coming from the Fennoscandian ice-sheet, the hosing, regional injection or fingerprinting give similar results, particularly after 50 years. Results are however quite different for meltwater input into the Gulf of St Lawrence or Gulf of Mexico.
The study is interesting and novel. Below I detail a few comments that should be taken into account before publication.
- The authors should synthesize all parts of the manuscript to make it easier to read. There are a lot of repetition throughout. The introduction needs to be re-structured to provide a more logical flow. At the moment, it seems like the introduction includes a summary and a longer description. In addition, the results are a bit difficult to follow. There are a lot of figures (or at least a lot of information in all the figures), and they are not necessarily mentioned when describing the results.
- Please be more precise, particularly in the abstract and conclusions. For example, L. 28-35 and 488-498, the broad hosing is compared to the other methods in a very subjective way. The response is faster by how much? The climate response is greater by how much and when? …
- Eddy-permitting simulations:
- It would be nice to show a figure in the supplement of the surface currents under LGM/YD conditions and how they differ with the pre-industrial run. This could be compared to a similar figure done with COSMOS.
- Was salinity restoring used in the simulations performed with the MIT-GCM? If yes, how would that impact your results?
- I understand that if other modellers want to re-do similar experiments, then the injection rates as shown in Figure 1 are relevant, but I find the salinity anomalies much more useful and would suggest to show the top 30m salinity anomalies (top 100m for GOM?) as figure 1 instead.
- I don’t understand the rationale behind taking a vertical integral to produce the injection rates (L. 179). I can see that for the GOM the freshwater seems to be advected very quickly into the sub-surface as no anomalies seem to be visible at 30m but anomalies are visible at 100m… yet without any clear justification salinity in the top ~100m should be shown and used,
- L157: it states that the simulations are run for 22 to 24 years, but on figure 1 the maximum years shown are 20.
4. COSMOS simulations
- It is stated that COSMOS exhibits centennial-scale climate variability under the boundary conditions chosen (L. 198-199). Isn’t that a problem for your study? Will the internal variability of the model affect the response to the meltwater injection?
-mIt would be nice to show the main surface currents in the NA in the control state, maybe on top on of the subplot of figure 3. That would help explain the simulated salinity anomalies.
L. 323 and 325: It is stated that 1dSv hosing results in greater reduction than MAK or FEN, but I think that the 1dSv are actually quite close to the MAK and FEN results. Maybe you simply wanted to say 2dSv?
L. 328: Why compare after 10 years?
L. 331 and elsewhere: It might be good to make a clearer distinction between the different locations of meltwater input and the time of interest. After 50 years, the MAK and FEN results seem similar to the broad NA hosing. However, the GSL and GOM are quite different until at yr 80-100.
Does this however mean that if one does not mind an uncertainty of 100 years, then the hosing is fine?
5. The impact on the AMOC of the different hosing locations is probably dependent on the location of deep-water formation in the North Atlantic. As such, the locations of deep-water formation in the COSMOS inter-stadial state should be shown. In addition, the strength of the sub-tropical and sub-polar gyres could impact the advection of salinity anomalies the locations of deep-water formation. The caveat associated with the 2 points mentioned above should be discussed.
L 429: this is a surprising result, that should be explained. Please also refer to a figure. The more effective salinity crossing is also not obvious from the figures.
6. Line by line comments
- Throughout: Replace “eddy-parametrizing” with “coarse-resolution” to avoid confusion
- Throughout: Please avoid starting sentences with “As well, “
- Abstract: Please define “AMOC”
- L. 39-40: Climate modelling studies should be cited here
- L. 53: References are needed
- L. 56-57: Remove “for a recent temperature reconstruction”
- L. 105: “direct hosing” needs to be replaced by something more appropriate and precise.
- 154: Please provide the exact coordinates of the meltwater input locations
- 216: ppmv
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2225-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ryan Love, 01 Feb 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2225/egusphere-2023-2225-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2225', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2225/egusphere-2023-2225-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ryan Love, 01 Feb 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2225/egusphere-2023-2225-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ryan Love, 01 Feb 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
352 | 139 | 36 | 527 | 56 | 37 | 32 |
- HTML: 352
- PDF: 139
- XML: 36
- Total: 527
- Supplement: 56
- BibTeX: 37
- EndNote: 32
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1