Studying multi-scale ocean dynamics and their contribution to water, heat and salt budgets in the South China Sea: evaluation of a high-resolution configuration of an online closed-budget hydrodynamical ocean model (SYMPHONIE version 249)

Trinh, Ngoc Bich; Herrmann, Marine; Ulses, Caroline; Marsaleix, Patrick; Duhaut, Thomas; To Duy, Thai; Estournel, Claude; Shearman, R. Kipp

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-547

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-547

Preprints

01 Jun 2023

| 01 Jun 2023

Studying multi-scale ocean dynamics and their contribution to water, heat and salt budgets in the South China Sea: evaluation of a high-resolution configuration of an online closed-budget hydrodynamical ocean model (SYMPHONIE version 249)

Ngoc Bich Trinh, Marine Herrmann, Caroline Ulses, Patrick Marsaleix, Thomas Duhaut, Thai To Duy, Claude Estournel, and R. Kipp Shearman

Abstract. The South China Sea Throughflow (SCSTF) connects the South China Sea (SCS) with neighboring seas and oceans, transferring surface water of the global thermohaline circulation between the Pacific and Indian oceans. A high resolution (4 km, 50 vertical levels) configuration of the SYMPHONIE ocean model is implemented over this region, and a simulation is performed over a 10 year period (2009–2018). An online computation of each term of the water, heat and salt budgets over the SCS (surface, lateral, and river fluxes and internal variations) is moreover developed. Comparisons with in-situ and satellite data show that the model reproduces correctly the spatial and temporal (from seasonal to interannual) variability of the surface water characteristics and circulation over the SCS, and the vertical distribution of water masses. The added value of an online computation compared to an offline one of water, heat and salt budget is quantitatively demonstrated. Important discards are obtained when computing heat and salt lateral fluxes offline (relative bias of respectively 31 % and 52 % and NRMSE of 32 % and 8 %, for the net heat and salt annual fluxes through the SCS). Considerable differences are also obtained for lateral incoming and outgoing fluxes, with relative biases of 41 %, 38 % and 41 % and NRMSE of 352 %, 226 % and 338 % for annual lateral inflows and outflows of water, heat and salt, respectively.

Received: 23 Mar 2023 – Discussion started: 01 Jun 2023

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 2855 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 (2855 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

29 Feb 2024

New insights into the South China Sea throughflow and water budget seasonal cycle: evaluation and analysis of a high-resolution configuration of the ocean model SYMPHONIE version 2.4

Ngoc B. Trinh, Marine Herrmann, Caroline Ulses, Patrick Marsaleix, Thomas Duhaut, Thai To Duy, Claude Estournel, and R. Kipp Shearman

Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1831–1867, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1831-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1831-2024, 2024

Short summary

Ngoc Bich Trinh, Marine Herrmann, Caroline Ulses, Patrick Marsaleix, Thomas Duhaut, Thai To Duy, Claude Estournel, and R. Kipp Shearman

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-547', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jun 2023

The authors utilized the SYMPHONIE model's kernel to conduct a simulation of higher resolution (4 km) compared to previous studies. They evaluated the performance of this simulation by comparing it with satellite and field measurements. The errors in online and offline computation of lateral fluxes were estimated. The logical flow of the manuscript is clear. However, based on my evaluation, this simulation did not provide new and insightful information about the dynamics of this large-area marginal sea. Therefore, I cannot support accepting this research in its current stage. I would like to highlight the following major concerns for the authors' consideration:
1) The authors claim that this simulation benefits from higher horizontal resolution, but it is unclear how. Were frequently used models like HYCOM, GLORYS12V1 from CMEMS, and OFES simulation shown to perform poorly compared to the regional simulation presented in the manuscript? It is essential to thoroughly compare this simulation with frequently used models, particularly when the circulations in the study area, such as the South China Sea (SCS), are influenced by complex internal and external forces. If these later simulations performed better than the configurated one, I don’t think a publication of this manuscript will contribute to the community.
2) The circulations in the SCS have not been adequately validated. For instance, the authors mention the significance of the SCS Throughflow, which plays a predominant role in defining the SCS circulation. It is crucial to further validate whether the intensity and structure of this flow are accurately represented in the simulation.
3) The simulation covers the period from 2009 to 2018, and the discussion also focuses on this period. Why was there no mention of the simulation requiring time to spin-up to eliminate distortions caused by abruptly imposed forcings?
4) The computational domain does not include the source region of the Kuroshio current (e.g. the NEC), which extensively intrudes into the SCS through Luzon Strait. Consequently, the dynamics of this important western-boundary current are not adequately addressed. It would be valuable to assess whether the intensity of the Kuroshio intrusion in the Luzon Strait aligns with observations of volume transport.
5) Among the widely used numerical simulation kernels, mass conservation is typically replaced by volume conservation under the incompressible assumption. Therefore, volume should be conserved in the computational domain, while salinity and temperature may not be conserved due to additional sources and sinks. I would appreciate it if the authors could explain why "The variation of heat content HC between times t1 and t2 (ΔHC) is equal to the sum of all heat fluxes exchanged within the SCS domain between t1 and t2" is used for heat balance. Additionally, why are evaporation-precipitation (E-P) and river discharge excluded from the computation of salt flux? Changes in salinity resulting from E-P and river discharge significantly affect the salinity and, consequently, the budget presented in the manuscript.
6) The simulation was forced with Harmonic Constants from FES2014b, and then the simulated heat content (HC) was compared to FES2014b itself. I may suggest the authors collect record of tidal elevation from tidal gauges and conduct validation.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-547-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ngoc Trinh Bich, 14 Oct 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-547/egusphere-2023-547-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-547-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-547', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Jul 2023
This manuscript presents a study on the implementation and evaluation of a high-resolution hydrodynamic model (SYMPHONIE) over the South China Sea (SCS). The authors simulate a 10-year period and successfully replicate observed circulation patterns and water masses in the SCS. The introduction of an online computation method to assess water volume, heat, and salt budgets adds strength to the manuscript. However, there are some areas that require improvement. First, the manuscript should clearly highlight the role and advantages of the 4 km configuration, enhancing the scientific significance of the study. Second, Section 3 needs restructuring to ensure logical flow and provide a more detailed evaluation of the South China Sea Throughflow (SCSTF). Lastly, reconsidering the title to clarify the "scale" aspect would be beneficial. By addressing these issues, the manuscript has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the scientific literature on South China Sea dynamics and ocean modeling community.

Major Comments:
The title of this manuscript is confusing and could be misunderstood as referring to different spatial scales of ocean dynamics rather than temporal scales. It is recommended to clarify this in the title to avoid confusion.

The manuscript mentions the use of a 4 km resolution, which is an outstanding feature of the configuration. It would be more meaningful to explicitly highlight the role and advantages of this high-resolution approach in the manuscript. This will enhance the significance of the "multi-scale ocean dynamics" concept, incorporating both temporal and spatial scales.

The authors claim that the 4 km configuration in the South China Sea (SCS) is developed, but it is important to explain the advantages of this resolution compared to coarser resolution models. Describing these advantages will enhance the scientific significance of the manuscript.

The structure of Section 3 is unclear. The title of Section 3.2 ("surface characteristics") overlaps with the title of Section 3.1 ("tide"), and the title of Section 3.2.3 is inconsistent with other subsection titles. It is recommended to restructure Section 3 to make it more coherent and clear.

The analysis of Mixed Layer Depth (MLD) in Section 3.4 is interesting, revealing a robust shallower bias due to wind speed. However, considering the higher resolution, a deeper MLD might be expected, particularly in winter. It would be valuable to compare the results of the 4 km configuration with a coarser-resolution configuration.

Since the South China Sea Throughflow (SCSTF) is mentioned as a major topic at the beginning of the manuscript, a detailed evaluation of all inflows and outflows through different straits would be expected. However, Section 3 (model evaluation) does not address these throughflows. It is recommended to include an evaluation of the SCSTF in Section 3.

Minor Comments:
Maintain consistency in the expression of water volume, using consistent terminology throughout the manuscript (e.g., water, volume, or water volume).

In Line 218, consider including river fluxes in Section 2.2.2 (lateral fluxes) for better organization.

In Figure 2, it is difficult to discern the difference between the simulation and tidal product. Including a column for bias would enhance clarity.

Figure 4 should include the bias information. Adding the bias to the figure will improve interpretation.

In Lines 312, 314, 361, 408, 479, etc., add units for the variables.

In Line 396, consider revising to "Therefore, our simulation accurately represents..."

The numbering in the caption of Figure 7 is incorrect, as "(c)" is used twice. Adjust the numbering accordingly.

Maintain consistency in formatting, ensuring that there is either a space or no space between paragraphs throughout the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-547-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ngoc Trinh Bich, 14 Oct 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-547/egusphere-2023-547-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-547-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-547', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jun 2023

The authors utilized the SYMPHONIE model's kernel to conduct a simulation of higher resolution (4 km) compared to previous studies. They evaluated the performance of this simulation by comparing it with satellite and field measurements. The errors in online and offline computation of lateral fluxes were estimated. The logical flow of the manuscript is clear. However, based on my evaluation, this simulation did not provide new and insightful information about the dynamics of this large-area marginal sea. Therefore, I cannot support accepting this research in its current stage. I would like to highlight the following major concerns for the authors' consideration:
1) The authors claim that this simulation benefits from higher horizontal resolution, but it is unclear how. Were frequently used models like HYCOM, GLORYS12V1 from CMEMS, and OFES simulation shown to perform poorly compared to the regional simulation presented in the manuscript? It is essential to thoroughly compare this simulation with frequently used models, particularly when the circulations in the study area, such as the South China Sea (SCS), are influenced by complex internal and external forces. If these later simulations performed better than the configurated one, I don’t think a publication of this manuscript will contribute to the community.
2) The circulations in the SCS have not been adequately validated. For instance, the authors mention the significance of the SCS Throughflow, which plays a predominant role in defining the SCS circulation. It is crucial to further validate whether the intensity and structure of this flow are accurately represented in the simulation.
3) The simulation covers the period from 2009 to 2018, and the discussion also focuses on this period. Why was there no mention of the simulation requiring time to spin-up to eliminate distortions caused by abruptly imposed forcings?
4) The computational domain does not include the source region of the Kuroshio current (e.g. the NEC), which extensively intrudes into the SCS through Luzon Strait. Consequently, the dynamics of this important western-boundary current are not adequately addressed. It would be valuable to assess whether the intensity of the Kuroshio intrusion in the Luzon Strait aligns with observations of volume transport.
5) Among the widely used numerical simulation kernels, mass conservation is typically replaced by volume conservation under the incompressible assumption. Therefore, volume should be conserved in the computational domain, while salinity and temperature may not be conserved due to additional sources and sinks. I would appreciate it if the authors could explain why "The variation of heat content HC between times t1 and t2 (ΔHC) is equal to the sum of all heat fluxes exchanged within the SCS domain between t1 and t2" is used for heat balance. Additionally, why are evaporation-precipitation (E-P) and river discharge excluded from the computation of salt flux? Changes in salinity resulting from E-P and river discharge significantly affect the salinity and, consequently, the budget presented in the manuscript.
6) The simulation was forced with Harmonic Constants from FES2014b, and then the simulated heat content (HC) was compared to FES2014b itself. I may suggest the authors collect record of tidal elevation from tidal gauges and conduct validation.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-547-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ngoc Trinh Bich, 14 Oct 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-547/egusphere-2023-547-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-547-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-547', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Jul 2023
This manuscript presents a study on the implementation and evaluation of a high-resolution hydrodynamic model (SYMPHONIE) over the South China Sea (SCS). The authors simulate a 10-year period and successfully replicate observed circulation patterns and water masses in the SCS. The introduction of an online computation method to assess water volume, heat, and salt budgets adds strength to the manuscript. However, there are some areas that require improvement. First, the manuscript should clearly highlight the role and advantages of the 4 km configuration, enhancing the scientific significance of the study. Second, Section 3 needs restructuring to ensure logical flow and provide a more detailed evaluation of the South China Sea Throughflow (SCSTF). Lastly, reconsidering the title to clarify the "scale" aspect would be beneficial. By addressing these issues, the manuscript has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the scientific literature on South China Sea dynamics and ocean modeling community.

Major Comments:
The title of this manuscript is confusing and could be misunderstood as referring to different spatial scales of ocean dynamics rather than temporal scales. It is recommended to clarify this in the title to avoid confusion.

The manuscript mentions the use of a 4 km resolution, which is an outstanding feature of the configuration. It would be more meaningful to explicitly highlight the role and advantages of this high-resolution approach in the manuscript. This will enhance the significance of the "multi-scale ocean dynamics" concept, incorporating both temporal and spatial scales.

The authors claim that the 4 km configuration in the South China Sea (SCS) is developed, but it is important to explain the advantages of this resolution compared to coarser resolution models. Describing these advantages will enhance the scientific significance of the manuscript.

The structure of Section 3 is unclear. The title of Section 3.2 ("surface characteristics") overlaps with the title of Section 3.1 ("tide"), and the title of Section 3.2.3 is inconsistent with other subsection titles. It is recommended to restructure Section 3 to make it more coherent and clear.

The analysis of Mixed Layer Depth (MLD) in Section 3.4 is interesting, revealing a robust shallower bias due to wind speed. However, considering the higher resolution, a deeper MLD might be expected, particularly in winter. It would be valuable to compare the results of the 4 km configuration with a coarser-resolution configuration.

Since the South China Sea Throughflow (SCSTF) is mentioned as a major topic at the beginning of the manuscript, a detailed evaluation of all inflows and outflows through different straits would be expected. However, Section 3 (model evaluation) does not address these throughflows. It is recommended to include an evaluation of the SCSTF in Section 3.

Minor Comments:
Maintain consistency in the expression of water volume, using consistent terminology throughout the manuscript (e.g., water, volume, or water volume).

In Line 218, consider including river fluxes in Section 2.2.2 (lateral fluxes) for better organization.

In Figure 2, it is difficult to discern the difference between the simulation and tidal product. Including a column for bias would enhance clarity.

Figure 4 should include the bias information. Adding the bias to the figure will improve interpretation.

In Lines 312, 314, 361, 408, 479, etc., add units for the variables.

In Line 396, consider revising to "Therefore, our simulation accurately represents..."

The numbering in the caption of Figure 7 is incorrect, as "(c)" is used twice. Adjust the numbering accordingly.

Maintain consistency in formatting, ensuring that there is either a space or no space between paragraphs throughout the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-547-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ngoc Trinh Bich, 14 Oct 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-547/egusphere-2023-547-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-547-AC2

Peer review completion

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

AR by Ngoc Trinh Bich on behalf of the Authors (14 Oct 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (20 Oct 2023) by Qiang Wang

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (28 Oct 2023)

RR by Yiwen Li (30 Oct 2023)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Major Comments:
1. MLD Underestimation and Wind Speed: How the authors concluded that all models' underestimation of Mixed Layer Depth (MLD) is attributed to the underestimation of wind speed. Do all models use the same forcing? It's important for the authors to clarify and provide further details on the role of wind speed and the consistency of forcing among the models when discussing MLD underestimation.

2. Use of Coarser Configuration: It is recommended that the authors consider using a coarser version of the same model core for comparison, in addition to comparing their high-resolution model with other coarser-resolution models. Including a coarser configuration with the same model core will provide a more convincing basis for highlighting the benefits of their new setting, especially in terms of finer resolution and other relevant factors. This approach can offer a more direct and robust assessment of the advantages of their high-resolution model.

3. Robustness of Lateral Interocean Exchanges Ratio: The ratio of different lateral interocean exchanges is interesting. I am also wondering if it is robust. If there is any observational or previous study support for this ratio. It's essential for the authors to provide information on the robustness and potential sources of validation for the ratios presented in the study.

Minor Comments:
1. Title Prolixity: The new title appears somewhat lengthy. It might be advisable to streamline the title by removing some of the detailed configuration information, thus achieving a more concise and reader-friendly title. The authors should contemplate this suggestion and determine if certain elements of the title can be omitted while retaining the core information.

2. Legend of Figure 2: The legend of Figure 2c is overlapped with the graph.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (30 Oct 2023) by Qiang Wang

AR by Ngoc Trinh Bich on behalf of the Authors (10 Dec 2023) Author's tracked changes Manuscript

EF by Polina Shvedko (12 Dec 2023) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (20 Dec 2023) by Qiang Wang

RR by Yiwen Li (28 Dec 2023)

ED: Publish as is (29 Dec 2023) by Qiang Wang

AR by Ngoc Trinh Bich on behalf of the Authors (08 Jan 2024) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

29 Feb 2024

New insights into the South China Sea throughflow and water budget seasonal cycle: evaluation and analysis of a high-resolution configuration of the ocean model SYMPHONIE version 2.4

Ngoc B. Trinh, Marine Herrmann, Caroline Ulses, Patrick Marsaleix, Thomas Duhaut, Thai To Duy, Claude Estournel, and R. Kipp Shearman

Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1831–1867, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1831-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1831-2024, 2024

Short summary

Ngoc Bich Trinh, Marine Herrmann, Caroline Ulses, Patrick Marsaleix, Thomas Duhaut, Thai To Duy, Claude Estournel, and R. Kipp Shearman

Viewed

Total article views: 416 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
283	105	28	416	11	21

HTML: 283
PDF: 105
XML: 28
Total: 416
BibTeX: 11
EndNote: 21

Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jun 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2023	118	37	9	164
Jul 2023	37	15	3	55
Aug 2023	15	0	15
Sep 2023	14	11	1	26
Oct 2023	40	17	6	63
Nov 2023	10	5	1	16
Dec 2023	18	5	4	27
Jan 2024	21	3	2	26
Feb 2024	10	12	2	24

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jun 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2023	118	37	9	164
Jul 2023	37	15	3	55
Aug 2023	15	0	15
Sep 2023	14	11	1	26
Oct 2023	40	17	6	63
Nov 2023	10	5	1	16
Dec 2023	18	5	4	27
Jan 2024	21	3	2	26
Feb 2024	10	12	2	24

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 402 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 402 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 29 Feb 2024

Download

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

Preprint (2855 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Seawater flows from the Pacific to the Indian Oceans through different straits of the South China Sea, forming the South China Sea Throughflow. We present the high-resolution model built for the study of water, heat and salt fluxes involved in this flow. The model is evaluated by comparing with observations. We moreover show that important discards are observed while calculating offline the net heat and salt flux and the inflow and outflow of water, heat and salt.


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