the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Spatio-temporal variations in surface Marine Carbonate System properties across the Western Mediterranean Sea using Volunteer Observing Ship data
Abstract. The surface physical and Marine Carbonate System (MCS) properties were assessed along the western boundary of the Mediterranean Sea. An unprecedent high-resolution observation-based dataset spanning 5 years (2019–2024) was built through automatically underway monitoring by a Volunteer Observing Ship (VOS). The MCS dynamics were strongly modulated by physical-biological coupling dependent on the upper-layer circulation and mesoscale features. On a seasonal scale, the variations in CO2 fugacity (fCO2,sw) were mainly driven by sea surface temperature (SST) fluctuations (45–83 %) and partially offset by the processes controlling total inorganic carbon (CT) distribution (25–38 %). On an interannual scale, the SST trends (0.26–0.43 ºC yr-1) have accelerated by 78–88 % in comparison with previous decades. The ongoing surface warming was the main factor (with a contribution of ~76–92 %) increasing fCO2,sw (4.18 to 5.53 µatm yr-1) and, consequently, decreasing pH (-0.005 to -0.007 units yr-1) in the surface waters. The seasonal SST, becoming larger due to progressively warmer summers, was the primary driver of the observed slope up of interannual trends. The evaluation of the air-sea CO2 exchange shows the area across the Alboran Sea (14,000 Km2) and the eastern Iberian margin (40,000 Km2) acting as an atmospheric CO2 sink of -1.57 ± 0.49 mol m-2 yr-1 (0.97 ± 0.30 Tg CO2 yr-1) and -0.70 ± 0.54 mol m-2 yr-1 (-1.22 ± 0.95 Tg CO2 yr-1), respectively. The net annual CO2 sink has reduced by 40–80 % since 2019 due to the ongoing strength of the source status during summer and the weakening in the sink status during spring and autumn.
- Preprint
(2719 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2762 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2709', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Oct 2024
reply
This study is an important example of analysis of oceanic carbonate systems based on observation data from the western Mediterranean Sea, and the measurement methods and data processing are generally appropriate. However, the structure of the Discussion and Conclusion is poor, and it is very difficult to understand the novelty that should be claimed in this paper. The authors should significantly revise the structure of the Discussion and Conclusion to clarify the appeal points of this paper to the readers.
Major comments
Most description in the Discussion and Conclusions are repetitions of the Result. For example, Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 are unnecessary and should be deleted. The current description that merely lists data is redundant, and make it difficult to understand new findings that should be claimed in the paper. The structure of these sections should be substantially revised by deleting unnecessary descriptions.The multivariable Taylor expansion is performed in Equation (6), but in this paper, TA is calculated as a linear equation of salinity, so there should be very strong multicollinearity between SSS and TA. Therefore, I am very suspicious of the results of this equation. We have to clear the problem of multicollinearity by removing one of the variables or by using methods to avoid multicollinearity (e.g., PLS regression).
I would also like to know how SSS and TA, which are less accurate in Equation (10), affect the results of the Taylor expansion. The author should calculate the error and clarify whether the Taylor expansion results are significant or not.The discrete description of the study area is difficult to understand for those who are not familiar with this area. Thus, a "Study area" or similarly named subchapter should be added in Chapter 2 to describe the contents at Line 56-124, the hydrographical conditions, and previous studies of carbonate observations.
Line 287 Since river water does not reach zero alkalinity even with zero salinity (see Friis et al., 2003), the effect of river cannot be excluded with this method.
Minor comments
Line 56 Abbreviations that appears for the first time in the maintext should be explained in the maintext.Line 187 Is the error in the instrument itself or is it due to the temperature difference between the ocean and the intake?
Line 226 One extra comma.
Line 295 What is different between S and SSS?
Line 318 The first paragraph of this chapter should be moved to the beginning of chapter 2.3. Also, if equation (10) is being applied to the data used in equations (6)-(9), it should be listed before those equations.
Line 399 Is this mean that the 11 points were determined by the seasonal variation of related parameters? If so this section should be moved to the second paragraph of the Result.
Line 557 The description about the SST reanalysis data should be moved to the Material and Method.
Line 657 The description should be moved to the Material and Method, or the Result.
Figure 2 It would be better to make the fCO2 and pH graph in Fig. 2 the Supplementary and nCT and nAT in the maintext.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2709-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', David Curbelo-Hernández, 08 Nov 2024
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2709/egusphere-2024-2709-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', David Curbelo-Hernández, 08 Nov 2024
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
144 | 44 | 50 | 238 | 24 | 3 | 6 |
- HTML: 144
- PDF: 44
- XML: 50
- Total: 238
- Supplement: 24
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1