Tipping of the double-diffusive regime in the Southern Adriatic pit in 2017 in connection with record high salinity values

Amorim, Felipe L. L.; Le Meur, Julien; Wirth, Achim; Cardin, Vanessa

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481

Preprints

27 Oct 2023

| 27 Oct 2023

Tipping of the double-diffusive regime in the Southern Adriatic pit in 2017 in connection with record high salinity values

Felipe L. L. Amorim, Julien Le Meur, Achim Wirth, and Vanessa Cardin

Abstract. Whenever salinity decreases with depth the water column is either unstable or in a state called salt fingering (SF), which exhibits increased vertical mixing. Analysis of a high-frequency time series of thermohaline data measured at the EMSO-E2M3A Regional Facility in the Southern Adriatic Pit (SAP) from 2014 to 2019 reveal that in the south Adriatic SF is the dominant regime. The same time series shows the presence of a very saline core of the Levantine Intermediate Water that penetrated with unprecedented strength during the winter of 2016/17 at around 550 dbar and even higher salinity water above. The effect of strong heat loss at the surface during that winter allowed deep convection to transport this high salinity water from the intermediate to the deep layers within the pit. This resulted in an increase in SF throughout the water column. In the subsurface layer (350 to 550 dbar) the increase is from 27 % to 72 % of observations. Consequently, we observe an alteration of vertical stratification throughout the water column during winter 2016/17, from a stratified water column to an almost homogeneous water column down to 700 dbar, with no return in the following years.

Received: 25 Oct 2023 – Discussion started: 27 Oct 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, 5650 KB)

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 (5650 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

28 Mar 2024

Tipping of the double-diffusive regime in the southern Adriatic Pit in 2017 in connection with record high-salinity values

Felipe L. L. Amorim, Julien Le Meur, Achim Wirth, and Vanessa Cardin

Ocean Sci., 20, 463–474, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-20-463-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-20-463-2024, 2024

Short summary

Felipe L. L. Amorim, Julien Le Meur, Achim Wirth, and Vanessa Cardin

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2481', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Nov 2023

The manuscript provides some calculations on the double diffusion or salt fingering processes in the Southern Adriatic Pit, which were somehow missing till now in the literature, although known to occur in the Adriatic and Mediterranean. The authors use long-term fixed mooring, in contrast to majority of similar studies which are based on the Argo profiling floats. I found the manuscript clearly written, focused and well organised, with just a few minor comments to raise:
- Fig. 1. The figure is hard to read, for example positions of Argo profiling float. It might be better to have 2-D plot with clear colours, e.g. blue for bathymetry, dashed arrows for deep currents, etc.
- Lines 106-111. The authors claim that introduction of VL variable in this study is something innovative. However, I cannot get this from the manuscript - maybe to explain or justify this (Why is innovative? Maybe a bit better explain the variable), here or in results where you present the variable.
- Figs A2 to A5 might be better to place as supplementary material, not to weighten the article as appendix, Fig. A1 looks nice and would be better to be placed in the main article.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Vanessa Cardin, 19 Jan 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2481/egusphere-2023-2481-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2481', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Dec 2023

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2481/egusphere-2023-2481-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Vanessa Cardin, 19 Jan 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2481/egusphere-2023-2481-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481-AC1
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2481', Anonymous Referee #3, 21 Dec 2023

The manuscript analyses a temperature and salinity dataset, obtained from a mooring in the southern Adriatic, at seven depth levels from surface to bottom, from November 2014 to October 2019. With the help of additional data from ECMWF and Copernicus and the profiles of an Argo float, the authors describe the evolution of thermohaline properties in the water column, relating them to heat fluxes at the air-sea surface, and analysing them towards other variables, such as mixed layer depth, relative vorticity and Turner angle.
Unfortunately, the study contains improper generalizations and some inaccuracies, already highlighted in particular by reviewer 2. Among these, the most serious is the recurring confusion between "predisposition to" and "occurrence of" salt fingering process, and a somewhat forced use of the Turner angle, compared to its original definition (Ruddick, 1983). Many arguments are based on this confusion and are therefore far from being proven valid.
In my opinion, for possible publication, the work requires further analysis or a new goal setting, considering that double diffusion processes, and SF in particular, are the core theme of the present study.
Below are some comments in addition to what the other two reviewers have already noted.
Line 7. The opening sentence of the abstract contains a dubious generalization. Perhaps salinity was confused with density?
Line 41. Durante et al. (2019) did not use Argo data but CTD profiles from cruises. A more appropriate reference for this topic is Taillandier et al. (Biogeosciences 17, 3343–3366. doi: 10.5194/bg-17-3343-2020) who used CTD and ARGO profiles, from the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Algerian Basin.
Line 93. “In order to explore if the water column was undergoing double-diffusive convection and its related local stability we estimated the Turner angle”. Wrong approach: with Tu you only evaluate whether the water column is inclined to a given regime and do not demonstrate its actual presence.
Line 95. Equation 2: missing brackets make the formula incorrect
Line 106. A reference is missing for the vector length (VL). If it is your original introduction of a new analysis parameter you must explain it better.
Lines 118-120. Can you explain better how you calculate geostrophic velocities and RV? Which dataset do you use? Perhaps something should be guessed from the figures A2-A7, but these also require some explanation.
Line 263. Instead of Durante et al. (2019), I would cite Durante et al. (2021, Front. Mar. Sci. 8:672437. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.672437) which is more appropriate in the context of fluxes.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Vanessa Cardin, 19 Jan 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2481/egusphere-2023-2481-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2481', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Nov 2023

The manuscript provides some calculations on the double diffusion or salt fingering processes in the Southern Adriatic Pit, which were somehow missing till now in the literature, although known to occur in the Adriatic and Mediterranean. The authors use long-term fixed mooring, in contrast to majority of similar studies which are based on the Argo profiling floats. I found the manuscript clearly written, focused and well organised, with just a few minor comments to raise:
- Fig. 1. The figure is hard to read, for example positions of Argo profiling float. It might be better to have 2-D plot with clear colours, e.g. blue for bathymetry, dashed arrows for deep currents, etc.
- Lines 106-111. The authors claim that introduction of VL variable in this study is something innovative. However, I cannot get this from the manuscript - maybe to explain or justify this (Why is innovative? Maybe a bit better explain the variable), here or in results where you present the variable.
- Figs A2 to A5 might be better to place as supplementary material, not to weighten the article as appendix, Fig. A1 looks nice and would be better to be placed in the main article.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Vanessa Cardin, 19 Jan 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2481/egusphere-2023-2481-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2481', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Dec 2023

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2481/egusphere-2023-2481-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Vanessa Cardin, 19 Jan 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2481/egusphere-2023-2481-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481-AC1
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2481', Anonymous Referee #3, 21 Dec 2023

The manuscript analyses a temperature and salinity dataset, obtained from a mooring in the southern Adriatic, at seven depth levels from surface to bottom, from November 2014 to October 2019. With the help of additional data from ECMWF and Copernicus and the profiles of an Argo float, the authors describe the evolution of thermohaline properties in the water column, relating them to heat fluxes at the air-sea surface, and analysing them towards other variables, such as mixed layer depth, relative vorticity and Turner angle.
Unfortunately, the study contains improper generalizations and some inaccuracies, already highlighted in particular by reviewer 2. Among these, the most serious is the recurring confusion between "predisposition to" and "occurrence of" salt fingering process, and a somewhat forced use of the Turner angle, compared to its original definition (Ruddick, 1983). Many arguments are based on this confusion and are therefore far from being proven valid.
In my opinion, for possible publication, the work requires further analysis or a new goal setting, considering that double diffusion processes, and SF in particular, are the core theme of the present study.
Below are some comments in addition to what the other two reviewers have already noted.
Line 7. The opening sentence of the abstract contains a dubious generalization. Perhaps salinity was confused with density?
Line 41. Durante et al. (2019) did not use Argo data but CTD profiles from cruises. A more appropriate reference for this topic is Taillandier et al. (Biogeosciences 17, 3343–3366. doi: 10.5194/bg-17-3343-2020) who used CTD and ARGO profiles, from the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Algerian Basin.
Line 93. “In order to explore if the water column was undergoing double-diffusive convection and its related local stability we estimated the Turner angle”. Wrong approach: with Tu you only evaluate whether the water column is inclined to a given regime and do not demonstrate its actual presence.
Line 95. Equation 2: missing brackets make the formula incorrect
Line 106. A reference is missing for the vector length (VL). If it is your original introduction of a new analysis parameter you must explain it better.
Lines 118-120. Can you explain better how you calculate geostrophic velocities and RV? Which dataset do you use? Perhaps something should be guessed from the figures A2-A7, but these also require some explanation.
Line 263. Instead of Durante et al. (2019), I would cite Durante et al. (2021, Front. Mar. Sci. 8:672437. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.672437) which is more appropriate in the context of fluxes.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Vanessa Cardin, 19 Jan 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2481/egusphere-2023-2481-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2481-AC3

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Vanessa Cardin on behalf of the Authors (19 Jan 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (19 Jan 2024) by Matjaz Licer

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (21 Jan 2024)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (29 Jan 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Title: Tipping of the double-diffusive regime in the Southern Adriatic pit in 2017 in connection with record high salinity values
Author(s): Felipe L. L. Amorim, Julien Le Meur, Achim Wirth, and Vanessa Cardin
MS No.: egusphere-2023-2481
MS type: Research article
Iteration: Revised submission
Special issue: Extremes in the marine environment: analysis of multi-temporal and multi-scale dynamics using observations, models, and machine learning techniques

Major comments :
The manuscript has been corrected according to the comments received for the initial version. Especially, more care is given to the question of salt-fingering (SF) probability of occurrence. However, I still have a few comments as you will see below.

Abstract:
The abstract concludes with “Consequently, we observe an alteration of vertical stratification throughout the water column”. This adverb, “consequently”, arises just after two sentences describing the increased predisposition to SF. Thus, the reader gets the impression that the alteration of vertical stratification throughout the water column may be due to SF while it is clearly due to convection after winter heat loss at the surface. This sounds misleading.

l. 23: parentheses should be removed.

l. 55: correct me if I am wrong but the bulk diffusivity coefficient of 5x10-4 m2 s-1 based on two types of data from Cardin at al. (2020) encompasses all dynamical processes acting for years and not only double diffusion activity (for example inertial waves, courant-topography induced mixing, ...). Because of previous sentences and the way it is stated, the reader gets the idea that double diffusion is responsible for this eddy value. More care is needed in the formulation if I am right, and more details should be given when referring to Cardin at al. (2020). Moreover, Cardin at al. (2020) focused on regions deeper than 750 dbar while this manuscript often focuses on the regions above.

l. 58: it is true that the “bulk” (i.e. calculated over large vertical scales of several hundreds of meters) eddy diffusivity coefficient of tracers (temperature, salinity) are around 2-6 x10-4 m2 s-1. Those values come out when the large-scale tracer gradient are taken for the computation. However, this large-scale gradient encompasses steps/interfaces (strongly stratified with double diffusive activity) and layers (almost unstratified). As Bryden et al. (2014) stated, double diffusive processes operate on the thin steps (meter-scale). There, kS = 3.7 × 10−5 m2 s−1 and kT = 2.0 × 10−5 m2 s−1, that is 15 times weaker than the bulk estimates. Those eddy coefficients are really those associated with the double-diffusive activity and were also measured with microstructure data (Schmitt et al., 2005, doi:10.1126/science.1108678; Ferron et al. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.664509) and in Radko and Smith (2012, doi:10.1017/jfm.2011.343)’s model for instance. Those eddy diffusivities remain small, but are associated with interfaces (“strong” vertical property gradients, which is the other important parameter when computing turbulent property fluxes) and, more importantly, concerns most of the time large spatial areas (as assumed at least in the Med, but also in some regions of the Atlantic for example). Thus, the overall contribution of double diffusive processes is thought to have an impact at the scale of those large areas, especially when they act for a long time (as assumed for the Tyrrhenian Sea). Maybe that a bit more detail and caution is needed when giving the eddy diffusivity values.

l. 309: ‘that’ missing ? ‘… due to the arrival of high saline waters that favored a convective event penetrating’

l. 313: ‘possible’ missing: ‘ Salt fingering is shown to be a consequence and a possible driver of the
density structure…’

l. 317: ‘How the competition between sporadic-extreme and continuous processes changes the structure of the water column and, in the future, how it acts on the thermohaline circulation of the Mediterranean is not decided.’
→ to gain insight on this competition for the SAP, you could apply a rapid calculation of salt and heat fluxes using bulk eddy coefficient typically encountered when SF is supposed to be active, and compare them to those due to the fast convection events. Given various assumptions regarding the duration and the vertical extension of assumed SF activity, you would get a rough idea of the competition between sporadic-extreme convection and more or less ‘continuous’ processes associated with SF processes.

l. 325: ‘The high vertical diffusivity coefficient of 5x10-4 m2 s-1 found in Cardin et al. (2020) is explained by the dominant SF double-diffusion regime below 750 dbar, and the probability of SF occurring in the whole water column increased after the winter of 2016/17.’

Several points:
1- There is an ambiguity:
When I read this, I wonder whether the explanation comes from Cardin et al. (2020) or from your study and conclusions. From my (too) fast reading of Cardin et al. (2020), I would say this is your assumption.

2- Again, if my reading of Cardin et al. (2020) was not too rapid, their reported eddy diffusivity only concerns waters deeper than 750 m. You should then be more specific. Given Fig. 5, it appears safe enough to assume that double diffusion (SF) may be the main contributor of this diffusion in the depth range (750-900). However, above 750 m, Turner angles are rarely very favorable to SF and your assumption is then quite weak and it sounds more like a speculation.

3- on the opposite, to support your SF assumption, you could use the two Argo profiles and calculate the Turner angle across the interfaces in regions where staircases were observed. Indeed, in the first version of your manuscript, the Turner were only moderately favorable (50-70°) to salt-fingering, but not that close to very favorable (close to 90°). I was wondering if there was any sensitivity in the way you calculated those Turner angles with the Argo profiles (which were smoothed over 20 m or so instead of calculating them across the identified interfaces in the staircase structures?). If, you could obtain Turner angles closer to 90°, this would bring some support to SF activity and contribution, at least in the regions where staircases were observed. And then you have an argument to say that the very limited vertical resolution of the mooring, that shows weak to moderate favorable angles to salt-fingering in the upper layers, may hide some much more favorable angles to SF (if you had more resolution to compute them).

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (29 Jan 2024) by Matjaz Licer

Dear authors,

i have received a sufficient number of referee reports regarding your manuscript and they both agree the current version is significantly improved. They recommend acceptance for publication after further minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, before I accept the paper in its final form, i'd like to ask you to address point-by-point the revision suggestions below, and submit a revised manuscript version with marked changes. Your manuscript will not be returned to the reviewers, but I believe it may still benefit from their suggestions.

Looking forward to receiving the new version of your manuscript.

Kind regards,
Matjaz Licer

Title: Tipping of the double-diffusive regime in the Southern Adriatic pit in 2017 in connection with record high salinity values
Author(s): Felipe L. L. Amorim, Julien Le Meur, Achim Wirth, and Vanessa Cardin
MS No.: egusphere-2023-2481
MS type: Research article
Iteration: Revised submission
Special issue: Extremes in the marine environment: analysis of multi-temporal and multi-scale dynamics using observations, models, and machine learning techniques

Major comments :
The manuscript has been corrected according to the comments received for the initial version. Especially, more care is given to the question of salt-fingering (SF) probability of occurrence. However, I still have a few comments as you will see below.

Abstract:
The abstract concludes with “Consequently, we observe an alteration of vertical stratification throughout the water column”. This adverb, “consequently”, arises just after two sentences describing the increased predisposition to SF. Thus, the reader gets the impression that the alteration of vertical stratification throughout the water column may be due to SF while it is clearly due to convection after winter heat loss at the surface. This sounds misleading.

l. 23: parentheses should be removed.

l. 55: correct me if I am wrong but the bulk diffusivity coefficient of 5x10-4 m2 s-1 based on two types of data from Cardin at al. (2020) encompasses all dynamical processes acting for years and not only double diffusion activity (for example inertial waves, courant-topography induced mixing, ...). Because of previous sentences and the way it is stated, the reader gets the idea that double diffusion is responsible for this eddy value. More care is needed in the formulation if I am right, and more details should be given when referring to Cardin at al. (2020). Moreover, Cardin at al. (2020) focused on regions deeper than 750 dbar while this manuscript often focuses on the regions above.

l. 58: it is true that the “bulk” (i.e. calculated over large vertical scales of several hundreds of meters) eddy diffusivity coefficient of tracers (temperature, salinity) are around 2-6 x10-4 m2 s-1. Those values come out when the large-scale tracer gradient are taken for the computation. However, this large-scale gradient encompasses steps/interfaces (strongly stratified with double diffusive activity) and layers (almost unstratified). As Bryden et al. (2014) stated, double diffusive processes operate on the thin steps (meter-scale). There, kS = 3.7 × 10−5 m2 s−1 and kT = 2.0 × 10−5 m2 s−1, that is 15 times weaker than the bulk estimates. Those eddy coefficients are really those associated with the double-diffusive activity and were also measured with microstructure data (Schmitt et al., 2005, doi:10.1126/science.1108678; Ferron et al. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.664509) and in Radko and Smith (2012, doi:10.1017/jfm.2011.343)’s model for instance. Those eddy diffusivities remain small, but are associated with interfaces (“strong” vertical property gradients, which is the other important parameter when computing turbulent property fluxes) and, more importantly, concerns most of the time large spatial areas (as assumed at least in the Med, but also in some regions of the Atlantic for example). Thus, the overall contribution of double diffusive processes is thought to have an impact at the scale of those large areas, especially when they act for a long time (as assumed for the Tyrrhenian Sea). Maybe that a bit more detail and caution is needed when giving the eddy diffusivity values.

l. 309: ‘that’ missing ? ‘… due to the arrival of high saline waters that favored a convective event penetrating’

l. 313: ‘possible’ missing: ‘ Salt fingering is shown to be a consequence and a possible driver of the
density structure…’

l. 317: ‘How the competition between sporadic-extreme and continuous processes changes the structure of the water column and, in the future, how it acts on the thermohaline circulation of the Mediterranean is not decided.’
→ to gain insight on this competition for the SAP, you could apply a rapid calculation of salt and heat fluxes using bulk eddy coefficient typically encountered when SF is supposed to be active, and compare them to those due to the fast convection events. Given various assumptions regarding the duration and the vertical extension of assumed SF activity, you would get a rough idea of the competition between sporadic-extreme convection and more or less ‘continuous’ processes associated with SF processes.

l. 325: ‘The high vertical diffusivity coefficient of 5x10-4 m2 s-1 found in Cardin et al. (2020) is explained by the dominant SF double-diffusion regime below 750 dbar, and the probability of SF occurring in the whole water column increased after the winter of 2016/17.’

Several points:
1- There is an ambiguity:
When I read this, I wonder whether the explanation comes from Cardin et al. (2020) or from your study and conclusions. From my (too) fast reading of Cardin et al. (2020), I would say this is your assumption.

2- Again, if my reading of Cardin et al. (2020) was not too rapid, their reported eddy diffusivity only concerns waters deeper than 750 m. You should then be more specific. Given Fig. 5, it appears safe enough to assume that double diffusion (SF) may be the main contributor of this diffusion in the depth range (750-900). However, above 750 m, Turner angles are rarely very favorable to SF and your assumption is then quite weak and it sounds more like a speculation.

3- on the opposite, to support your SF assumption, you could use the two Argo profiles and calculate the Turner angle across the interfaces in regions where staircases were observed. Indeed, in the first version of your manuscript, the Turner were only moderately favorable (50-70°) to salt-fingering, but not that close to very favorable (close to 90°). I was wondering if there was any sensitivity in the way you calculated those Turner angles with the Argo profiles (which were smoothed over 20 m or so instead of calculating them across the identified interfaces in the staircase structures?). If, you could obtain Turner angles closer to 90°, this would bring some support to SF activity and contribution, at least in the regions where staircases were observed. And then you have an argument to say that the very limited vertical resolution of the mooring, that shows weak to moderate favorable angles to salt-fingering in the upper layers, may hide some much more favorable angles to SF (if you had more resolution to compute them).

Hide

AR by Vanessa Cardin on behalf of the Authors (05 Feb 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (12 Feb 2024) by Matjaz Licer

AR by Vanessa Cardin on behalf of the Authors (13 Feb 2024) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

28 Mar 2024

Tipping of the double-diffusive regime in the southern Adriatic Pit in 2017 in connection with record high-salinity values

Felipe L. L. Amorim, Julien Le Meur, Achim Wirth, and Vanessa Cardin

Ocean Sci., 20, 463–474, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-20-463-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-20-463-2024, 2024

Short summary

Felipe L. L. Amorim, Julien Le Meur, Achim Wirth, and Vanessa Cardin

Viewed

Total article views: 293 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
207	60	26	293	11	9

HTML: 207
PDF: 60
XML: 26
Total: 293
BibTeX: 11
EndNote: 9

Views and downloads (calculated since 27 Oct 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2023	28	8	4	40
Nov 2023	43	9	4	56
Dec 2023	55	10	8	73
Jan 2024	44	10	6	60
Feb 2024	21	12	3	36
Mar 2024	16	11	1	28
Apr 2024	0
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 27 Oct 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2023	28	8	4	40
Nov 2023	43	9	4	56
Dec 2023	55	10	8	73
Jan 2024	44	10	6	60
Feb 2024	21	12	3	36
Mar 2024	16	11	1	28
Apr 2024	0
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 284 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 284 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 12 Sep 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (5650 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Analysis of a high-frequency time series of thermohaline data measured at the EMSO-E2M3A Regional Facility in the Southern Adriatic Pit (SAP) reveals a significant change in the double-diffusive regime in 2017 associated with the intrusion of extremely salty waters into the area, suggesting salt fingering as the dominant regime. The strong heat loss at the surface during this winter allowed deep convection to transport this high salinity water from the intermediate to the deep layers of the pit.


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