the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Insights Into Mesoscale Eddy Dynamics: A Three-Dimensional Perspective on Potential Density Anomalies
Abstract. Mesoscale eddies are fundamental components of global ocean circulation. In situ observations and Lagrangian analyses have shown that most eddies are materially coherent, transporting a water mass within their core that differs from the surrounding environment. Additionally, laboratory experiments indicate that eddies locally modify stratification in accordance with thermal wind balance, regardless of whether they trap a water mass. These two mechanisms drive, respectively, spiciness mode anomalies and heaving mode anomalies associated with mesoscale eddies. In this study, aiming to quantitatively assess the physical processes governing mesoscale eddy dynamics, we introduce a novel theoretical decomposition of the potential density field within eddy cores to account for both effects. This framework is applied to six anticyclonic eddies sampled during the EUREC4A-OA, METEOR 124, and Physindien 2011 oceanographic campaigns. Unlike previous studies, we evaluate not only the amplitude of these anomalies but also their vertical structure. Our results confirm that heaving mode anomalies dominate the total density anomaly. However, in contrast to previous assumptions, we demonstrate that their vertical structure is dictated by the local background stratification and often follows a nearly Gaussian profile. Meanwhile, spiciness anomalies provide only a second-order contribution to the total potential density anomaly, rendering them negligible in most dynamical processes governing mesoscale eddies. By bridging experimental results with observational eddy datasets, this study refines our understanding of mesoscale eddy vertical structure, offering a more accurate predictive framework for their shape and role in oceanic property transport.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1041', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 May 2025
Please see the attached for review comments.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Yan Barabinot, 04 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1041/egusphere-2025-1041-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Yan Barabinot, 04 Jul 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1041', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 May 2025
I found this to be a useful contribution to the literature on the structure of coherent anticyclonic eddies in the ocean. The authors essentially fit idealized horizontal and vertical structure functions to five coherent anticyclonic eddies. A key novelty, compared with earlier studies are the use of potential density, rather than velocity, fields in fitting the models to the observations. The authors find that heaving anomalies dominate over spiciness anomalies - which is perhaps not surprising, but nevertheless valuable to confirm. There is also an interesting finding regarding the horizontal structure of the eddies, where the exponential power is higher than Gaussian or even cubic exponential - indeed I thought that this point could have been highlighted in the conclusions. Overall, the manuscript is well written and should be published after minor revisions.
I note that the first reviewer has commented extensively on the parameter fitting/optimization process and, in particular, number of free parameters as well as the detailed methodology. I will not dwell on these issues here, on which I am not as expert, except to note that I agree with the points raised by the reviewer.
Specific points:
1. The first few sentences of the abstract need tightening. Firstly, I disagree with the statement "In situ observations and Lagrangian analyses have shown that most eddies are materially coherent", indeed the work of Abernathey and Haller (doi: 10.1175/JPO-D-17-0102.1) reaches a very different conclusion. The easiest solution, since this point is of tangental relevance to the present manuscript, is to revert to the text in the introduction about coherent vortices being long-lived and playing an important role in ocean circulation and transport. There is also the separate issue raised by Abernathey and Haller of whether "eddy" is a noun or adjective, which again I would encourage the authors to sidestep by inserting the adjective "coherent". Secondly, I don't understand the statement "laboratory experiments indicate that eddies locally modify stratification in accordance with thermal wind balance, regardless of whether they trap a water mass". It is not obvious that stratification needs to altered at all in a heaving mode, but merely that the isopycnals and raised or lowered. And at low Rossby number, away from boundaries, any flow should be close to thermal wind balance, but I don't believe it follows that this causes eddies to modify stratification, only that lateral density gradients and vertical shear will co-vary in accordance with thermal wind balance.
2. I understand that it is convenient to use potential density referenced to the surface, but is there a good reason not to have used neutral density for this study, given that the amount of data involved does not seem particularly prohibitive?
3. Line 84: I think you need to add that the stratification is assumed to be stable for invertibility.
4. Figure 1: I suggest reducing the magnitude of the sea surface displacement in the upper panel.
5. I understand the rationale for invoking the quasigeostrophic approximation for analytical tractability, but you should comment on the extent to which the quasigeostrophic assumptions are (not) satisfied in the eddies under consideration, and whether this is a significant limitation, in your view, or otherwise (and why).
6. I must confess I spent some time to derive equation (38) and wonder if you can provide some pointers to help the reader? Also, is there a good reason that the zero is moved to the left hand side of (37) compared with the original equation (34)?
7. Line 215: I understand what you mean by the "nonlinear" term, but technically this remains a linear equation. It is nonlinear only in the vertical coordinate.
8. Diffusion arguments" - what specifically do you mean by diffusion? Is this physical, based on an oceanographic process? I have no idea from what is written, and this must be explained and justified.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1041-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Yan Barabinot, 04 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1041/egusphere-2025-1041-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Yan Barabinot, 04 Jul 2025
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1041', Bernadette Sloyan, 02 Jun 2025
The two referees provide several points for the authors to consider in their revised manuscript. I encourage the authors to consider the referee comments and provide a point-by-point response to authors comments and revised manuscript to Ocean Sciences.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1041-EC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Yan Barabinot, 04 Jul 2025
Dear Editor,
Please find attached the responses to the reviewers' comment. We apologize for the delay. We are ready to submit the revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Yan Barabinot
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1041-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Yan Barabinot, 04 Jul 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1041', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 May 2025
Please see the attached for review comments.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Yan Barabinot, 04 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1041/egusphere-2025-1041-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Yan Barabinot, 04 Jul 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1041', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 May 2025
I found this to be a useful contribution to the literature on the structure of coherent anticyclonic eddies in the ocean. The authors essentially fit idealized horizontal and vertical structure functions to five coherent anticyclonic eddies. A key novelty, compared with earlier studies are the use of potential density, rather than velocity, fields in fitting the models to the observations. The authors find that heaving anomalies dominate over spiciness anomalies - which is perhaps not surprising, but nevertheless valuable to confirm. There is also an interesting finding regarding the horizontal structure of the eddies, where the exponential power is higher than Gaussian or even cubic exponential - indeed I thought that this point could have been highlighted in the conclusions. Overall, the manuscript is well written and should be published after minor revisions.
I note that the first reviewer has commented extensively on the parameter fitting/optimization process and, in particular, number of free parameters as well as the detailed methodology. I will not dwell on these issues here, on which I am not as expert, except to note that I agree with the points raised by the reviewer.
Specific points:
1. The first few sentences of the abstract need tightening. Firstly, I disagree with the statement "In situ observations and Lagrangian analyses have shown that most eddies are materially coherent", indeed the work of Abernathey and Haller (doi: 10.1175/JPO-D-17-0102.1) reaches a very different conclusion. The easiest solution, since this point is of tangental relevance to the present manuscript, is to revert to the text in the introduction about coherent vortices being long-lived and playing an important role in ocean circulation and transport. There is also the separate issue raised by Abernathey and Haller of whether "eddy" is a noun or adjective, which again I would encourage the authors to sidestep by inserting the adjective "coherent". Secondly, I don't understand the statement "laboratory experiments indicate that eddies locally modify stratification in accordance with thermal wind balance, regardless of whether they trap a water mass". It is not obvious that stratification needs to altered at all in a heaving mode, but merely that the isopycnals and raised or lowered. And at low Rossby number, away from boundaries, any flow should be close to thermal wind balance, but I don't believe it follows that this causes eddies to modify stratification, only that lateral density gradients and vertical shear will co-vary in accordance with thermal wind balance.
2. I understand that it is convenient to use potential density referenced to the surface, but is there a good reason not to have used neutral density for this study, given that the amount of data involved does not seem particularly prohibitive?
3. Line 84: I think you need to add that the stratification is assumed to be stable for invertibility.
4. Figure 1: I suggest reducing the magnitude of the sea surface displacement in the upper panel.
5. I understand the rationale for invoking the quasigeostrophic approximation for analytical tractability, but you should comment on the extent to which the quasigeostrophic assumptions are (not) satisfied in the eddies under consideration, and whether this is a significant limitation, in your view, or otherwise (and why).
6. I must confess I spent some time to derive equation (38) and wonder if you can provide some pointers to help the reader? Also, is there a good reason that the zero is moved to the left hand side of (37) compared with the original equation (34)?
7. Line 215: I understand what you mean by the "nonlinear" term, but technically this remains a linear equation. It is nonlinear only in the vertical coordinate.
8. Diffusion arguments" - what specifically do you mean by diffusion? Is this physical, based on an oceanographic process? I have no idea from what is written, and this must be explained and justified.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1041-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Yan Barabinot, 04 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1041/egusphere-2025-1041-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Yan Barabinot, 04 Jul 2025
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1041', Bernadette Sloyan, 02 Jun 2025
The two referees provide several points for the authors to consider in their revised manuscript. I encourage the authors to consider the referee comments and provide a point-by-point response to authors comments and revised manuscript to Ocean Sciences.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1041-EC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Yan Barabinot, 04 Jul 2025
Dear Editor,
Please find attached the responses to the reviewers' comment. We apologize for the delay. We are ready to submit the revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Yan Barabinot
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1041-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Yan Barabinot, 04 Jul 2025
Data sets
Concatenated Temperature, Salinity, and Velocity measurements from EUREC4A_OA/ATOMIC Pierre L'Hégaret et al. https://doi.org/10.17882/92071
AtlantOS data products from multibeam EM122 data: METEOR cruise M124 (Atlantic) Anne-Cathrin Wölfl and Martin Schade https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.902947
Physical oceanography during METEOR cruise M124 Johannes Karstensen and Gerd Krahmann https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.863015
Raw multibeam EM122 data: METEOR cruise M124 (SE Atlantic) Johannes Karstensen and Anne-Cathrin Wölfl https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.869740
Physindien 2011 Seasoar measurements Pierre L'Hégaret and Xavier Carton https://doi.org/10.17882/77351
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
369 | 0 | 6 | 375 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 369
- PDF: 0
- XML: 6
- Total: 375
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1