Upper ocean changes with hurricane-strength wind events: a study using Argo profiles and an ocean reanalysis

Sala, Jacopo; Giglio, Donata; Hu, Addison; Kuusela, Mikael; Wood, Kimberly M.; Lee, Ann B.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1202

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1202

Preprints

03 May 2024

| 03 May 2024

Upper ocean changes with hurricane-strength wind events: a study using Argo profiles and an ocean reanalysis

Jacopo Sala, Donata Giglio, Addison Hu, Mikael Kuusela, Kimberly M. Wood, and Ann B. Lee

Abstract. As the Earth’s climate is warming, the intensity and rain rate of tropical cyclones (TCs) is projected to increase. TCs intensify by extracting heat energy from the ocean, hence a better understanding of upper ocean changes with the TC passage is helpful to improve our understanding of air-sea interactions during and after the event. This work uses Argo float observations and the HYCOM ocean reanalysis to describe characteristics of upper ocean changes with hurricane-strength wind events. We study the association of upper ocean changes with the vertical structure of the salinity profile before the event (increasing versus decreasing), as well as the contribution of changes in salinity to upper ocean density changes in each case. Results show that in regions where pre-event salinity increases (decreases) with depth, there is a corresponding statistically significant increase (decrease) in upper ocean salinity. Consistent with previous studies, temperature decreases in both regions. As temperature decreases, upper ocean density increases and the increase is larger where pre-event salinity increases with depth. Changes in upper ocean properties (from Argo and HYCOM) are overall consistent with wind-driven vertical mixing of near-surface waters with colder and higher (or lower) salinity waters below. Resulting changes in ocean stratification have implications for air-sea interactions during and after the event, with potential impacts on weather events that follow.

Received: 22 Apr 2024 – Discussion started: 03 May 2024

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, 17034 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 (17034 KB)

Supplement (5364 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

05 Nov 2024

Upper-ocean changes with hurricane-strength wind events: a study using Argo profiles and an ocean reanalysis

Jacopo Sala, Donata Giglio, Addison Hu, Mikael Kuusela, Kimberly M. Wood, and Ann B. Lee

Ocean Sci., 20, 1441–1455, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-20-1441-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-20-1441-2024, 2024

Short summary

Jacopo Sala, Donata Giglio, Addison Hu, Mikael Kuusela, Kimberly M. Wood, and Ann B. Lee

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1202', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 May 2024

The authors examine how pre-existing salinity stratification impacts the vertical redistribution of salinity by TCs and weather events with TC-strength winds. A strength of the paper is the use of both HYCOM ocean reanalysis fields as well as in situ measurements by Argo profiling floats. The authors find that pre-event salinity profiles that increase with depth yield greater near-surface salinity increases and near-surface stratification decreases compared to pre-event salinity profiles that decrease with depth. The analysis and results are potentially interesting and informative to the TC and air-sea interaction communities, but several improvements to the writing and presentation are needed to make the paper suitable for publication.
First, the writing is rather negatively affected by the overuse of parenthetical statements, making it difficult to follow the logic and thought processes of the authors. Examples just within the Introduction can be found on lines 38, 46, 56, 57, 63, and 72, but this practice is pervasive throughout the entire manuscript. In general, text within parentheses should either be omitted, as it is not essential to convey the concept or finding, or should be fully incorporated into the sentence; the latter may require sentence restructuring. There are also several instances of run-on sentences (i.e., lines 60-63) that require attention. Additionally, the use of “condition (counter-condition) to describe state (counter-state)” is discouraged in scientific writing. See the 2010 Eos article by Alan Robock “Parentheses Are (Are Not) for References and Clarification (Saving Space)” for a discussion on this point.
Other points to address before publication relate to the motivation and framing of the paper, analysis methods, the use of supplemental figures to discuss temperature changes, and figure improvements.
Motivation/framing: I could not understand the rationale to analyze TC effects for increasing and decreasing salinity profiles instead of barrier layer presence, and how this classification might be similar to or different than previous work that has focused on barrier layers. To make a case for their approach, the authors should 1) show mean S or S’ profiles for each state and 2) include an analysis of barrier layer presence, and possibly thickness and strength (i.e., stability) as a function of salinity profile. A second point of confusion is related to the inclusion of non-TC weather events with TC wind speeds. These events are included in the analysis, but there is no discussion of their characteristics, prevalence, or distribution relative to TCs. A brief overview of non-TC high wind events should be given in the Introduction, and their distribution should be indicated somehow in Fig 1, or perhaps in a table that lists percentages of TC and non-TC wind events for each region shown in Fig. 1. Finally, their effects on ocean T, S, and potential temperature should be compared and contrasted to TCs, as they aren’t discussed in the latter parts of the paper.
Analysis methods: according to Section 3.2.4 (lines 175-183), T and S anomalies with respect to TCs are computed by subtracting the mean annual cycle of non-TC-classified profiles from TC profiles. First of all, it is not clear how the mean seasonal cycle is computed: is it computed for each 1x1 grid box or averaged over the boxes shown in Figure 1? Second, by subtracting the non-TC mean profile, what’s left is a profile that is potentially unique to the TC environment. Third, I wonder if it would be more informative to subtract the T or S profile averaged from days -2 to 0 from all days plotted in Figure 2 and similar figures. The reason being that these figures show T and S anomalies whose vertical distribution is nearly constant with time, which might simply reflect the classification scheme and not wind-generated vertical mixing effects. Subtracting the pre-event averaged anomaly might show changes in the DEPTH of the anomalies with TC passage, which is the expected signal.
Use of supplemental figures to discuss temperature changes: The authors dedicate a fair amount of text to discussing temperature changes for increasing and decreasing salinity profiles (i.e., lines 195-221, but the discussion refers to two multipanel plots of supplemental figures. I can understand the desire to limit the number of figures, but assessing changes to ocean stratification requires consideration of both salinity and temperature, so it might be better to combine these changes into one plot by adding temperature differences as contours to Figures 2 and 4.
Figure improvements: most figures could be improved through more informative panel labels. For instance, Figure 1 panel labels should include “HYCOM” in panels a and b, and “dS/dz >0” and “dS/dz<0” to help readers understand what they’re looking at (“d” should be partial derivative symbol). Figures 2-5 should include panel labels “dS/dz>0”, “dS/dz<0”, and “difference (a-b).”
This work has the potential to be quite informative to the TC and air-sea interaction communities and I hope that the authors can incorporate some of these suggestions to produce a paper that should be widely read among these communities.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1202-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jacopo Sala, 26 Jul 2024
  
  The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1202-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1202', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Jun 2024

In this paper the authors discussed the trend of ocean salinity and density profiles before and after tropical cyclones using Argo float observations and HYCOM ocean reanalysis. The upper ocean changes and the vertical structures are presented, but all figures are discussing the pre-event salinity increases and decreases with depth without much background information. There is even no example showing how much the pre-event salinity changes. That being said, the results are very well presented and the manuscript is very well written. In my opinion, the paper can be published after addressing a few minor issues.

Here is the list of my concerns:

Line 65. Why do the authors look at the vertical structures of the ocean under tropical cyclone conditions under pre-event salinity changes? The authors should mention and discuss this more explicitly in the introduction. Do you want to investigate the response of the ocean under different initial conditions?
Line 126. Can the authors show an example of increasing and decreasing cases? Why use 50 meters below the mixing layer? How is the mixing layer determined in this work? What will happen if the differences for salinity or density are very small?
Line 145. I think this coordinate system is only used for Fig. 6 and the definition of cross-track angle is confusing. From Hu et al. 2024, isn’t it the shortest distance between Argo float and cyclone track? The word “angle” in Fig. 6 is also confusing because it may refer to some angles between -180/pi to 180/pi. Is there any reason for not using the distance in km or meters?
Line 150. How the Argo data and HYCOM data being used is still confusing to me. It seems that most figures are plotted directly using HYCOM data, but the pre-event conditions are determined based on the Argo floats?
Line 190. More technical details are needed for the statistical analysis. Are pre-TC and post-TC profiles having the same standard deviations?
Figure 2a. Any interpretation of the alternative blue red blue colors between 50 to 200 m from day -1 to day 2? How about the decrease of the density at day 0 in Figure 3a? If Figure 4 and Figure 2 are presenting the same result, why are the Argo data having much stronger increase at day 0?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1202-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jacopo Sala, 26 Jul 2024
  
  The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1202-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1202', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 May 2024

The authors examine how pre-existing salinity stratification impacts the vertical redistribution of salinity by TCs and weather events with TC-strength winds. A strength of the paper is the use of both HYCOM ocean reanalysis fields as well as in situ measurements by Argo profiling floats. The authors find that pre-event salinity profiles that increase with depth yield greater near-surface salinity increases and near-surface stratification decreases compared to pre-event salinity profiles that decrease with depth. The analysis and results are potentially interesting and informative to the TC and air-sea interaction communities, but several improvements to the writing and presentation are needed to make the paper suitable for publication.
First, the writing is rather negatively affected by the overuse of parenthetical statements, making it difficult to follow the logic and thought processes of the authors. Examples just within the Introduction can be found on lines 38, 46, 56, 57, 63, and 72, but this practice is pervasive throughout the entire manuscript. In general, text within parentheses should either be omitted, as it is not essential to convey the concept or finding, or should be fully incorporated into the sentence; the latter may require sentence restructuring. There are also several instances of run-on sentences (i.e., lines 60-63) that require attention. Additionally, the use of “condition (counter-condition) to describe state (counter-state)” is discouraged in scientific writing. See the 2010 Eos article by Alan Robock “Parentheses Are (Are Not) for References and Clarification (Saving Space)” for a discussion on this point.
Other points to address before publication relate to the motivation and framing of the paper, analysis methods, the use of supplemental figures to discuss temperature changes, and figure improvements.
Motivation/framing: I could not understand the rationale to analyze TC effects for increasing and decreasing salinity profiles instead of barrier layer presence, and how this classification might be similar to or different than previous work that has focused on barrier layers. To make a case for their approach, the authors should 1) show mean S or S’ profiles for each state and 2) include an analysis of barrier layer presence, and possibly thickness and strength (i.e., stability) as a function of salinity profile. A second point of confusion is related to the inclusion of non-TC weather events with TC wind speeds. These events are included in the analysis, but there is no discussion of their characteristics, prevalence, or distribution relative to TCs. A brief overview of non-TC high wind events should be given in the Introduction, and their distribution should be indicated somehow in Fig 1, or perhaps in a table that lists percentages of TC and non-TC wind events for each region shown in Fig. 1. Finally, their effects on ocean T, S, and potential temperature should be compared and contrasted to TCs, as they aren’t discussed in the latter parts of the paper.
Analysis methods: according to Section 3.2.4 (lines 175-183), T and S anomalies with respect to TCs are computed by subtracting the mean annual cycle of non-TC-classified profiles from TC profiles. First of all, it is not clear how the mean seasonal cycle is computed: is it computed for each 1x1 grid box or averaged over the boxes shown in Figure 1? Second, by subtracting the non-TC mean profile, what’s left is a profile that is potentially unique to the TC environment. Third, I wonder if it would be more informative to subtract the T or S profile averaged from days -2 to 0 from all days plotted in Figure 2 and similar figures. The reason being that these figures show T and S anomalies whose vertical distribution is nearly constant with time, which might simply reflect the classification scheme and not wind-generated vertical mixing effects. Subtracting the pre-event averaged anomaly might show changes in the DEPTH of the anomalies with TC passage, which is the expected signal.
Use of supplemental figures to discuss temperature changes: The authors dedicate a fair amount of text to discussing temperature changes for increasing and decreasing salinity profiles (i.e., lines 195-221, but the discussion refers to two multipanel plots of supplemental figures. I can understand the desire to limit the number of figures, but assessing changes to ocean stratification requires consideration of both salinity and temperature, so it might be better to combine these changes into one plot by adding temperature differences as contours to Figures 2 and 4.
Figure improvements: most figures could be improved through more informative panel labels. For instance, Figure 1 panel labels should include “HYCOM” in panels a and b, and “dS/dz >0” and “dS/dz<0” to help readers understand what they’re looking at (“d” should be partial derivative symbol). Figures 2-5 should include panel labels “dS/dz>0”, “dS/dz<0”, and “difference (a-b).”
This work has the potential to be quite informative to the TC and air-sea interaction communities and I hope that the authors can incorporate some of these suggestions to produce a paper that should be widely read among these communities.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1202-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jacopo Sala, 26 Jul 2024
  
  The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1202-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1202', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Jun 2024

In this paper the authors discussed the trend of ocean salinity and density profiles before and after tropical cyclones using Argo float observations and HYCOM ocean reanalysis. The upper ocean changes and the vertical structures are presented, but all figures are discussing the pre-event salinity increases and decreases with depth without much background information. There is even no example showing how much the pre-event salinity changes. That being said, the results are very well presented and the manuscript is very well written. In my opinion, the paper can be published after addressing a few minor issues.

Here is the list of my concerns:

Line 65. Why do the authors look at the vertical structures of the ocean under tropical cyclone conditions under pre-event salinity changes? The authors should mention and discuss this more explicitly in the introduction. Do you want to investigate the response of the ocean under different initial conditions?
Line 126. Can the authors show an example of increasing and decreasing cases? Why use 50 meters below the mixing layer? How is the mixing layer determined in this work? What will happen if the differences for salinity or density are very small?
Line 145. I think this coordinate system is only used for Fig. 6 and the definition of cross-track angle is confusing. From Hu et al. 2024, isn’t it the shortest distance between Argo float and cyclone track? The word “angle” in Fig. 6 is also confusing because it may refer to some angles between -180/pi to 180/pi. Is there any reason for not using the distance in km or meters?
Line 150. How the Argo data and HYCOM data being used is still confusing to me. It seems that most figures are plotted directly using HYCOM data, but the pre-event conditions are determined based on the Argo floats?
Line 190. More technical details are needed for the statistical analysis. Are pre-TC and post-TC profiles having the same standard deviations?
Figure 2a. Any interpretation of the alternative blue red blue colors between 50 to 200 m from day -1 to day 2? How about the decrease of the density at day 0 in Figure 3a? If Figure 4 and Figure 2 are presenting the same result, why are the Argo data having much stronger increase at day 0?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1202-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jacopo Sala, 26 Jul 2024
  
  The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1202-AC2

Peer review completion

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

AR by Jacopo Sala on behalf of the Authors (06 Aug 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (07 Aug 2024) by Mario Hoppema

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (16 Aug 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have well-addressed my previous comments. I feel that the paper is ready for publication pending a few minor edits that do not require further review.

L21: change “more and more powerful” to “more powerful”

L28. Change colon to period and begin a new sentence.

L29: change “tends to a decreasing” to “decreases”

L32: Delete “We note that”

L35: change “upper ocean changes in temperature” to “changes in upper ocean temperature” to mirror “changes in upper ocean salinity” later in the same sentence.

L40: replace “, regulating the strength of” with “and”

L41-42: by “taking into account” do you mean “assimilation of”?

L42-43: delete “also it may be important to better understand post-cyclone air-sea interactions.”

L47: replace “…(Sun et al. 2021). Contrarily, in the Southern Hemisphere a salty wake after TC passage is observe on” with “…(Sun et al. 2021) and the left-hand side of the storms in the Southern Hemisphere.”

L50: this is improper use of a semi-colon. From https://www.niu.edu/writingtutorial/index.shtml: “Use a semicolon to join two related independent clauses in place of a comma and a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet). Make sure when you use the semicolon that the connection between the two independent clauses is clear without the coordinating conjunction.” The two phrases joined by a semicolon here should be two separate sentences. Authors should check other uses of semicolon throughout text for other possible edits.

L51: delete “i.e, in most regions where cyclonic activity is found”

L59: delete “e.g.”

L77-78: the phrase “which has potential implications for upper ocean stratification and air-sea exchanges” and its close relatives seems to be overused. It only needs to be highlighted once in the introduction and once in the conclusions.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (27 Aug 2024) by Mario Hoppema

Dear Dr. Sala and co-authors,

Thank you for the submission of your revised manuscript. As you can see in the referee report, referee #1 is satisfied with the changes you made and with the revised manuscript. The referee added a short list of final technical corrections to be made. I myself am also satisfied with your revised manuscript. I do have some final corrections and comments which are listed below. Please account for all comments and corrections before publication in Ocean Science.

Several data sets and data products are used and the authors show mention these correctly in the data availability section. I would like to ask the authors to check whether the data originators request a separate data use statement, or possibly ask for citing of specific papers describing the data.

The barrier layer plays an important role in the text. However, there is no definition of it in the text. It would be useful to define it and its characteristics, so that all readers think about the same feature when barrier layer is mentioned.

L9 Add “surface” before temperature for clarity
L42 delete (Balaguru et al., 2021) as it is already mentioned earlier in the sentence

L43 “it is important” instead of: it may be important
L61 … by about 35%

L74 Please add SI units for knots; they could be inserted in parentheses

L98-99 “Data and methods used in our analysis are described in Section 2 and 3, respectively. Results are presented in Section 4. Section 5 includes a summary and conclusions.” This can be deleted as the structure of the manuscript shows up in the text below and these descriptions do not add any new info.

L107-108 Change to (note the punctuation): “Data are reported at six-hourly resolution, since 1851 for the Atlantic hurricane database (HURDAT2), since 1949 for the Northeast and North Central Pacific (HURDAT2) and since 1945 for the JTWC Best Track Data.”

L139 Please add SI units for knots; they could be inserted in parentheses
L142-143 “… we exclude, from the remaining data, any other event within ±2◦ and 7 days before and after the one selected.” Maybe add a sentence why you do this.

L164 instead of: “e.g. Figure 3, 4”, see Figures 3 and 4
L193-195 This can be more succinct: … which we also call the "signal" profile, needs to be between 2 days before and 20 days after the TC passage to hedge against storm effects prior to the event, as described in Hu et al. (2024) and consistent with Cheng et al. (2015).

L228 change to: … as shown in Figures 5 and 6.
L233 I think “of upper ocean changes during hurricane-strength TCs” can be deleted, as this is mentioned again in the next line

L246-248 “A difference in cooling is also seen when comparing HYCOM composites based on the vertical structure of salinity before a hurricane-strength wind event as in our analysis, i.e., pre-event salinity "increasing" versus "decreasing" with depth, instead of pre-event barrier layer present versus not.” This sentence is hard to understand. Please rephrase for better reading

L265 At line 133 it is written that absolute salinity is used (for Argo). Here 0.05 psu is given? Which one do you use? Please note that psu is not a unit.

L300-301 “The analysis of HYCOM fields in the previous section quantifies upper ocean changes with hurricane-strength wind events based on the pre-event vertical structure of salinity.” This sentence can be deleted as it is clear from the previous section.

L303-305 “In this section, we focus on the specific case of hurricane-strength TCs and analyze Argo profile data to estimate upper ocean changes based on pre-event salinity "increasing" versus "decreasing" with depth.” This can be deleted as the title of the section gives this info and the following text is showing it.

L311-314 “This difference may be related to how vertical mixing processes are represented in the HYCOM model, the availability of sparse ocean observations co-located with events of interest, as well as the details of the vertical structure of pre-event upper ocean properties in the model versus observations.” This is quite general information, which then do not convey much understanding to the reader. Please explain and elaborate how such factors might affect the difference.

L316-320 This one long sentence is hard to understand. Please rephrase and split it into two sentences for better understanding
L328-329 “Consistent with wind-induced vertical mixing, salinity increases versus decreases with the TC passage for the "increasing" versus "decreasing" case (Figure 5)” This sentence is not clear. Please rephrase

Caption Figure 7: Please mention and define the abbreviations MLT, MLS and MLPD as used as y-axis label in the caption

L447 delete pp.
L543 Add after 30,: 1933, doi:10.1029/2003GL017878
L552 delete pp.
L554 Add after 30,: 1572, doi:10.1029/2002GL016717
L571 delete p. before 1287

Thanks and with best wishes
Mario Hoppema

Hide

AR by Jacopo Sala on behalf of the Authors (05 Sep 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (06 Sep 2024) by Mario Hoppema

AR by Jacopo Sala on behalf of the Authors (06 Sep 2024) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

05 Nov 2024

Upper-ocean changes with hurricane-strength wind events: a study using Argo profiles and an ocean reanalysis

Jacopo Sala, Donata Giglio, Addison Hu, Mikael Kuusela, Kimberly M. Wood, and Ann B. Lee

Ocean Sci., 20, 1441–1455, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-20-1441-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-20-1441-2024, 2024

Short summary

Jacopo Sala, Donata Giglio, Addison Hu, Mikael Kuusela, Kimberly M. Wood, and Ann B. Lee

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1202-supplement

Jacopo Sala, Donata Giglio, Addison Hu, Mikael Kuusela, Kimberly M. Wood, and Ann B. Lee

Viewed

Total article views: 482 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
313	135	34	482	31	26	12

HTML: 313
PDF: 135
XML: 34
Total: 482
Supplement: 31
BibTeX: 26
EndNote: 12

Views and downloads (calculated since 03 May 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2024	138	52	11	201
Jun 2024	55	11	4	70
Jul 2024	63	36	10	109
Aug 2024	27	12	5	44
Sep 2024	13	8	4	25
Oct 2024	16	16	0	32
Nov 2024	1	0	1

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 03 May 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2024	138	52	11	201
Jun 2024	55	11	4	70
Jul 2024	63	36	10	109
Aug 2024	27	12	5	44
Sep 2024	13	8	4	25
Oct 2024	16	16	0	32
Nov 2024	1	0	1

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 474 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 474 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 05 Nov 2024

Download

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

Preprint (17034 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

As Earth’s climate warms, cyclone intensity and rain may rise. Cyclones, like hurricanes, gain strength from warm ocean waters. Understanding how oceans react to strong winds is vital. Our study highlights ocean responses to pre-storm salinity. Changes in salinity affect ocean during storms: salinity rises, temperature falls, density increases. The study suggests that mixing of near surface with deeper water may impact heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere during and after a weather event.


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