the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
AdriE: a high-resolution ocean model ensemble for the Adriatic Sea under severe climate change conditions
Abstract. With its complex and peculiar meteo-oceanographic dynamics and the coexistence of diverse socio-economic activities and pressures with outstanding cultural heritage and environmental assets, the Adriatic basin (Mediterranean Sea) has traditionally been considered as a natural laboratory for marine science in its broadest meaning. In recent years the intensification of the effects of climate change, together with the increasing awareness of its possible consequences and of the knowledge gaps hampering a long-term response, have opened new questions and reframed most of the existing ones into a multi-decadal time scale. In this perspective, a description of the possible evolution of the physical oceanographic processes is the baseline for addressing the multi-disciplinary challenges set by climate change, but up to now it has not been possible to combine for this basin a sufficiently high resolution in the process description with an estimate of the uncertainty associated with the predictions. This work presents an end-of-century, kilometre-scale ensemble modelling approach for the description of ocean processes in the Adriatic Sea. Addressing 3-D circulation and thermohaline dynamics within the Regional Ocean Modelling System (ROMS), the ensemble consists of six climate runs encompassing the period from 1987 to 2100 in a severe RCP8.5 scenario forced by the SMHI-RCA4 Regional Climate Model, driven by as many different CMIP5 General Climate Models made available within the EURO-CORDEX Initiative. The climate ensemble is flanked by a dedicated evaluation run for the 1987–2010 period, in which SMHI-RCA4 has been driven by reanalysis fields approximating the better available boundary conditions, thus isolating the intrinsic sources of uncertainty of the RCA4-ROMS modelling chain. In order to allow a direct comparison, the assessment of the model skills in the evaluation run borrows, as far as possible, data and approaches used for the evaluation of a recent kilometre-scale, multi-decadal modelling effort for this region. The model performances are mostly aligned with the state-of-art reference, with particularly encouraging results in terms of description of Marine Heat Waves and Cold Spells. Future projections suggest an increase in temperature and salinity at upper and intermediate depths, resulting in an overall decrease in water density and possibly in deep ventilation rates. Projected variations are stronger in summer and autumn, and in these seasons the ensemble range is larger than the spatial variability of the quantities and occasionally comparable with the intensity of the climate signal, highlighting the importance of an ensemble approach to treat the climate variability at this time scale. Monthly averages of the main quantities are available for each run on a dedicated Zenodo repository, and subsets of the full modelling dataset can be requested to the corresponding author.
- Preprint
(8015 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1468', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jul 2024
The manuscript mostly concentrated on the Evaluation Run and its statistical properties by comparing the ocean model output with the available observations (SST, SLP, T). However, the manuscript missing a detailed analysis of the climate runs which is the main promise of the manuscript. The statistical analysis made for the Evaluation Run (Atmospheric forcings, Sea level variability and circulation patterns, Thermohaline properties, Extreme thermal events) should be repeated for all the climate runs.
As it is known, the open boundary conditions (OBCs) for the ocean models are critical, especially in the Adriatic Sea, the small differences in the salinity and temperature specified at the OBCs significantly affect the dense water formation and physical properties. In the manuscript, how the OBC data were generated to force the ROMS model is not clear, need to be specified the methods and justified that could be used safely in a climate model.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1468-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1468', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Sep 2024
Review of the paper
AdriE: a high-resolution ocean model ensemble for the Adriatic Sea under severe climate change conditions
Authors: Davide Bonaldo, Sandro Carniel, Renato R. Colucci, Cléa Denamiel, Petra Pranic, Fabio Raicich, Antonio Ricchi, Lorenzo Sangelantoni, Ivica Vilibic, Maria Letizia VitellettiThe manuscript deals with the present and the end-of-century, kilometre-scale ensemble modelling approach for the description of ocean processes in the Adriatic Sea using and ensemble of climate runs in a severe RCP8.5 scenario forced by the SMHI-RCA4 Regional Climate Model driven by CMIP5 General Climate Models as well as evaluation runs for the 1987-2010 period.
The text is well written and results are presented clearly.
The authors show that the main behaviour of the model used is ‘’satisfactory’’. However scenario simulations show results that necessitate a deeper investigation of the role of the model set up and of the forcing. The choice of the lateral boundary conditions is also of a crucial importance.
A deeper investigation of the relatively high theta and S changes in the deep Adriatic is recommended. This is also the case of the weak change of MHWs shown.
I recommend major revisions.
Specific comments:
-15. ‘’ with particularly encouraging results’’
Could authors explain to what extent results are encouraging?
-45. ‘’ (?Denamiel et al., 2021a) ‘’
Please correct if needed.
-50. ‘’ … ranging from the very evolution of the global…’’
Could authors verify this sentence?
-100. ‘’Potential temperature (θ), salinity (S), momentum…”
Could authors describe how momentum is used in the boundary condition set up?
-105. ‘’…were modulated accordingly with the anomalies computed from Med-CORDEXderived CMCC-CMprofiles (Scoccimarro et al., 2011) in the norhtheasternmost grid cell of the Ionian Sea.’’
Could authors better describe the approach followed?
-185. ‘’Furthermore, although being the only available option the evaluation of SMHI-RCA4, ERA-INTERIM known to be far from the “perfect boundary conditions” hypothesis, particularly in terms of rainfall-related quantities (Bao and Zhang, 2013).’’
This sentence is rather unclear, could authors rephrase it.
-210. Whereas the comparisons shown in Fig.2, Fig.3 and 4 show that the model behaviour is rather satisfactory as stated by the authors: ‘’thus performing significantly better than most of the RCMs available for this geographical area’’, it would be interesting to illustrate this by one or two concrete examples.
-230. “This northbound improvement of the model skills suggests that internal dynamics partially compensate for the missing variability component in the boundary conditions.’’ ; “…the fairly good performance on the Northern Adriatic coast permits a more straightforward use in this region, also in terms of boundary conditions for local applications”.
-What is the sampling interval used in Fig.5?
-Are tidal oscillations included in Fig .5?
-The tidal amplitude is known high in the northern Adriatic; could authors discuss the impact of the tidal amplitude of the model performance shown in Fig.5.
-Again authors should further discuss the lateral boundary conditions.
-270. ‘’… , suggesting that SST does not show any macroscopic sign of a spurious drift related to the model implementation “.
Could authors rephrase this sentence?
-280. ‘’ In turn, while intermediate to high S values are mostly well reproduced, low to mid salinity tends to be overestimated, particularly in the Kvarner Bay and in the Dalmatian Islands.’’
Please better discuss and explain the overestimation of the lowest S values.
-285. ‘’ This suggests that the climate ensemble, whose implementation began before the release of the latest version of MFS (Escudier et al., 2020), should not be considered prone to major elements of obsolescence associated with the use of a previous dataset (Simoncelli et al., 2019)”.
Could authors explain how this can be deduced from Fig.10.
-305. ‘’ In the deep Adriatic, an apparent tendency to underestimate average values of θ and S throughout the year is actually the result of some shortcomings in the description of thermohaline properties in the upper layers.’’
The sentence needs further explanation of the mentioned shortcomings.
-370. Please correct : ‘’hle200 m’’
-375. ‘’Below the upper layer, θ increase varies from + 2.8°C for h=200 m to +1.3°C for h≥800 m, S increase varies from +0.21 to +0.17, and σθ varies between-0.44 and-0.15 kg m−3.’’
Authors should discuss the relatively high values of salinity and theta changes in the deep Adriatic (shown in Fig.15c) and present comparison with results from previous work. Also, why two among the vertical profiles of the theta change are truncated at depths less than ~630 m, (Fig. 15c left).
-385. ‘’Under this approach, modelled differences between SCE and CTR conditions (expressed as monthly mean cumulative intensity of the events) appear generally minor and in any case only occasionally statistically significant.’’
Here also, authors should mention results from previous work, if available.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1468-RC2 -
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1468', Iana Strigunova, 10 Oct 2024
The manuscript introduces a kilometre-scale ensemble modelling approach to ocean processes in the end-of-century (RCP8.5) scenario in the Adriatic Sea. The modelling chain ensemble is achieved by utilising the ROMS modelling system forced by the SMHI-RCA4 Regional Climate Model, driven by five different climate models and two different realisations of the same model.
While the current version requires modifications, its scientific value (considering trade-offs between high resolution and decadal climate projections) and the region's importance as a climate change hotspot, for instance, are evident. Please find the suggestions for the manuscript’s improvement below.
The 3.1.4 subsection (‘Extreme thermal events’) discusses the evaluation of thermal extremes identified from Trieste harbour station (Fig. 12). While the comparison is completely valid for one point, it does not provide an understanding of how these extremes are simulated for the subdomains of the Adriatic Sea, which are used to describe the difference in the statistics of the present and future MHWs and CSs (Fig. 16).
Minor comments
The study greatly explores the possibility of an ensemble modelling approach for the Adriatic Sea. Could these results apply to other parts of the Mediterranean Sea or even to other global regions? By addressing this question, the manuscript may be attractive for more readers.
Some parts of the abstract seem unnecessarily wordy, making them hard to read and potentially hampering readers' understanding of the study's real significance. For instance, while the abstract's first two sentences extensively discuss the study's importance, they do not clearly explain why it is essential to study the Adriatic basin or why this study could interest researchers not directly dealing with the Adriatic Sea. In this regard, I would suggest two changes: 1) please consider moving these sentences to the introduction and 2) perhaps rephrase it in a bit more concise manner so readers familiarise themselves with the study's significance quickly. The clarity of the abstract could be improved by starting from the sentence in line 9 (‘This work presents…’).
Lines 6-9: “...a description of the possible evolution of the physical oceanographic processes is the baseline for addressing the multi-disciplinary challenges set by climate change, … ”. I would be more cautious stating in this way. It is one of the key processes, but others are no less important (biogeochemistry processes and human influence, for instance).
Line 33: “Due to the coexistence of manifold meteo-oceanographic processes…’’. It is not clear what it implies. Perhaps readers who are not familiar with specific regional features will not understand the importance.
Lines 38 and 153: I am unfamiliar with the ‘EO analysis’ and ‘BiOS ’ abbreviations. Could you please clarify what does it mean?
Lines 208-213: The paragraph logically flows from the previous ones, but there is no reference to Fig. 4, which is discussed in the previous paragraph. Would it be possible to change the order or add a part about Fig. 4 in the last paragraph for a more comprehensive summary and a following conclusion?
Lines 363-376. This paragraph has many numbers based on Fig. 15, which hinders understanding of what they actually mean. I would suggest modifying the paragraph in the following way: adding a summary table with numbers and modifying the text so that only the essential findings with no numbers are kept. That would allow to describe Fig. 15 and interpret the results in a clearer manner.
Section 4 (‘Conclusions’) opens up with a summary of what the authors did. Starting from line 407, it is more of a discussion form until line 419. The main results are summarised in lines 425-439. Perhaps authors could allocate a separate section for lines 407-418 and keep all summary points together in the Conclusions to make it clearer for readers.
Technical comments
Lines 23-24 (440-442): Could you please specify why this type of information is repeated across the manuscript? Mentioning data availability on specified repositories and request to the corresponding author are finely placed in the “Data availability” section.
Line 35: “... the presence of highly-exposed sites of outstanding natural and cultural value…”. This part seems unnecessarily wordy. What do you mean by ‘highly-exposed’ sites? It is not completely clear.
It would be beneficial to extend Table 1 by adding information on horizontal resolution. Additionally, having each centre’s name to the model’s name (NCC, IPSL, MPI, etc.) appears redundant since they have already been used in the first column.
Table 3: the “Name” column should be wider to enable each name to fit in one row.
Fig. 1 and 2 could also be reallocated to the rest of the figures or the other figures placed within the main text for consistency.
The caption of Fig. 1: Maybe I missed it, but have you introduced the ‘AS ’ abbreviation?
Line 198: ‘...(>15 ms−1, see Mears et al. 2022) wind speed)...’ it seems the extra ‘)’ symbol can be removed.
Line 278: “theta” Please correct if needed.
Line 315: “... of Marine Heat Waves (MHWs) and Cold Spells…’ to “... of Marine Heat Waves (MHWs) and Cold Spells (CS) …’ Please correct if needed.
Line 353: “σtheta” Please correct if needed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1468-CC1
Data sets
AdriE ocean climate model ensemble for the Adriatic Sea - monthly fields D. Bonaldo et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11202265
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
242 | 56 | 23 | 321 | 17 | 18 |
- HTML: 242
- PDF: 56
- XML: 23
- Total: 321
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1