the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Far-Future Climate Projection of the Adriatic Marine Heatwaves: a kilometre-scale experiment under extreme warming
Abstract. The impact of a far-future extreme warming scenario on Adriatic marine heatwave (MHW) characteristics—including intensity, duration, spatial extent, and associated environmental drivers—is assessed using the Adriatic Sea and Coast (AdriSC) kilometre-scale atmosphere-ocean model. The main aim of this study is to evaluate the added value and limitations of the Pseudo-Global Warming (PGW) approach used to force the far-future AdriSC simulation, in projecting Adriatic MHWs. In line with existing knowledge, the results indicate a significant increase in MHW intensity along with a notable expansion in spatial coverage, particularly in the central and eastern Adriatic. Seasonal patterns show that the most intense MHWs occur between May and September, with events extending into late autumn and early winter under extreme warming. This study also reveals several novel insights. First, the Po River plume is identified as a key factor for the onset and decline of MHWs. Lower river discharges are associated with intense MHW onset, while higher discharges aid in heat dissipation during decline phases. As, air-sea heat fluxes are demonstrated to play a critical role in MHW onset along the plume, these findings suggest that MHWs are more likely to develop and persist under low Po River discharge conditions, when water clarity increases and solar radiation absorption is enhanced due to reduced suspended sediments and organic matter. Second, the study identifies a gap in MHW activity, potentially linked to the Eastern Mediterranean Transient, highlighting the influence of natural variability on MHW dynamics. However, no correlation is found with the Ionian-Adriatic Bimodal Oscillating System, suggesting the need for further research on oceanographic influences. Consequently, the PGW approach is found to effectively captures the thermodynamic changes influencing the MHWs in the Adriatic Sea despite potentially oversimplifying future MHW dynamics as it assumes stationarity in climate signals. Finally, these findings underscore the urgent need for adaptive strategies to mitigate the impacts of intensified MHWs on marine ecosystems and coastal communities, particularly in vulnerable nearshore areas. Future research should incorporate ensemble of high-resolution projections and assess additional climate stressors to provide a more comprehensive understanding of Adriatic MHWs under future warming.
-
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
(3801 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3801 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1363', Justino Martínez, 25 Apr 2025
In my opinion, the major revision I'm requesting will improve the study by providing a clear physical meaning of the MHW variability in each individual period (historical and RCP 8.5).
Please see the pdf included in the zip file
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Clea Denamiel, 30 May 2025
I would like to sincerely thank Reviewer #1 for the exceptionally thorough and constructive review of the manuscript. The detailed and insightful comments, particularly regarding the importance of using detrended sea-surface temperature to better assess the influence of ocean dynamics on marine heatwaves (MHWs), were extremely helpful. Thanks to the guidance and evidence provided, the MHWs were recalculated accordingly, which significantly improved the robustness and clarity of the results. The detailed comments are addressed in the attached document.
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Justino Martínez, 05 Jun 2025
In my opinion, the paper is now complete and almost ready to be published. Only three remarks:
1.- A brief explanation about how the trend has been computed
2.- Figures 2, 3, and 4 should be modified because a detrended is now performed. Please let me know if this is not true.
3.- The figure R1 (trend) should be incorporated to the paper. Additionally, the trend could be shown only with the positive values of the bar (range 0:0.5) to show clearly the zones more affected by warming
Thanks in advance
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Clea Denamiel, 09 Jun 2025
I am again truly grateful for the contribution of Reviewer #1—Dr. Justino Martinez—to enhancing the quality of the article. The additional comments are addressed in detail in the attached document.
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Justino Martínez, 10 Jun 2025
Ok. Thanks... For me it's ok...
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-RC3 -
RC4: 'Reply on RC3', Justino Martínez, 10 Jun 2025
Once the changes are incorporated into the final paper, it can be published...
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-RC4 -
AC6: 'Reply on RC3', Clea Denamiel, 19 Jun 2025
Thank you.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-AC6
-
AC6: 'Reply on RC3', Clea Denamiel, 19 Jun 2025
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Clea Denamiel, 19 Jun 2025
Thank you.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-AC4 -
AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Clea Denamiel, 19 Jun 2025
Thank you.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-AC5 -
AC6: 'Reply on RC3', Clea Denamiel, 19 Jun 2025
Thank you.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-AC6
-
RC4: 'Reply on RC3', Justino Martínez, 10 Jun 2025
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Justino Martínez, 10 Jun 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Clea Denamiel, 09 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Justino Martínez, 05 Jun 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Clea Denamiel, 30 May 2025
-
RC5: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1363', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jun 2025
Review of Far-Future Climate Projection of the Adriatic Marine Heatwaves: a kilometre-scale experiment under extreme warming” by Cléa Denamiel.
This work presents an analysis of marine heatwave characteristics in the Adriatic Sea under historical conditions (1987–2017) and a far-future extreme warming scenario for 2070–2100 based on RCP 8.5.
I have two main comments about this paper. First, is that the author should better present, from the beginning, the methodology used (the Pseudo-Global Warming approach) together with the limitations of this approach. The description in the Methods section is rather succinct, and the presentation of what the limitations of this approach could be comes rather late in my opinion (it is mentioned in the introduction but the implications are not clear). My second comment is that there should be also a description of the differences between the historical and RCP8.5 runs, in terms of extrema, variability, intensity and trends. Without this we cannot put in context the differences observed between both runs presented in the paper.
Here are my comments in order of appearance:
Figure 1. I'd limit the bathymetry colorbar to the depths found in the Adriatic. As it is now, we can clearly see Thyrrhenian bathymetry which is irrelevant, and the Adriatic is rather homogeneous
Line 125-129. I find it confusing what it is mentioned about the shifting of the RCP8.5 results: is this only for visualisation purposes? Why is this done?
Line 147: "All the intensities": which intensities
Line 165: "deepest part": I'd suggest to add some bathymetry contours to Fig 2
Line 168: central eastern Adriatic: maybe refer to the pre-defined regions?
Figure 3. Add (left) and (right) to the description of panel (e) in the caption. The colors used in panels (a) and (b) are rather random. I would suggest to use shades of the same colours for each decade (e.g. shades of blue for the first decade, shades of orange for second decade and shades of purple for the last one. I would avoid red and green on the same figure). What are the dotted lines in panel (e)? (one is straight and the other seems to follow the histograms). The colours of the histograms represent the same thing as the numbers on the x-axis? and what about the height of the histograms? Because I do not understand why the yellow histograms for the monthly panel are higher than the RCP8.5 histograms but are still yellow.
Line 188. Here you mention for the first time that there are no MHWs for years 9-11 in both runs. This comes as a surprising fact, moreover since this happens in both runs, which makes it look suspicious that the PGW approach is not able to separate from the variability from the base/historical run. This is discussed in the Discussion section, but I think a brief comment (indicating this is fully described in the Discussion section) should be added here.
Line 200. Is the word skewed the correct one here? For me skewed indicates there is a bias/error in the data, and not just that it show a trend towards a specific value (which is what is mentioned here).
Line 222. Are MHWs less frequent in RCP8.5 because they are longer? (i.e. there is less time with no MHW so less possibilities for a new MHW to develop)
Line 223-225. I do not understand what the author refers to in this sentence. If it is what I think I understand, doesn't a correlation of 0.9 show again that the PGW is not effectively separating events from the historical run from the RCP8.5?
Figures 5 and 6. Again, there is a dotted line which is not described in the caption, and no units in the y-axis of panels a.b.c (left). What is bottom temperature and OHC *intensity* ?
Line 270. values of 0.25degC etc "above the climatology" I guess?
Figure 7. There is no description in the text of how the "percentage of events primarily driven by air-sea fluxes" is determined.
Line 326. I would not call these other studies "independent observations" since they might use the same datasets. Just "other studies" would be more adequate.
Line 374 and following: how are the percentage of changes in the discharges decided? Why is this not discussed in the Methods section?
Section 4.2.2 Here the author mentions the Easter Mediterranean Transient as a possible cause of the absence of MHW in years 9-11, but no proof or demonstration is given, so this is just a suggestion provided by the author that needs to be verified. Line 427 says no previous work has linked EMT to MHW suppression, but this work doesn't provide the link either. And again, the fact that the MHW absence is also noticed in the RCP8.5 run should be better explained as it reflects in my opinion that the PGW fails to detach from the base variability. There is some mention in line 447 but this should be made clearer before.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-RC5 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC5', Clea Denamiel, 13 Jun 2025
I would like to sincerely thank Reviewer #2 for the constructive review of the manuscript. The detailed and insightful comments were extremely helpful in restructuring the manuscript and clarifying the methodology. The detailed comments are addressed in the attached document.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC5', Clea Denamiel, 13 Jun 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1363', Justino Martínez, 25 Apr 2025
In my opinion, the major revision I'm requesting will improve the study by providing a clear physical meaning of the MHW variability in each individual period (historical and RCP 8.5).
Please see the pdf included in the zip file
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Clea Denamiel, 30 May 2025
I would like to sincerely thank Reviewer #1 for the exceptionally thorough and constructive review of the manuscript. The detailed and insightful comments, particularly regarding the importance of using detrended sea-surface temperature to better assess the influence of ocean dynamics on marine heatwaves (MHWs), were extremely helpful. Thanks to the guidance and evidence provided, the MHWs were recalculated accordingly, which significantly improved the robustness and clarity of the results. The detailed comments are addressed in the attached document.
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Justino Martínez, 05 Jun 2025
In my opinion, the paper is now complete and almost ready to be published. Only three remarks:
1.- A brief explanation about how the trend has been computed
2.- Figures 2, 3, and 4 should be modified because a detrended is now performed. Please let me know if this is not true.
3.- The figure R1 (trend) should be incorporated to the paper. Additionally, the trend could be shown only with the positive values of the bar (range 0:0.5) to show clearly the zones more affected by warming
Thanks in advance
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Clea Denamiel, 09 Jun 2025
I am again truly grateful for the contribution of Reviewer #1—Dr. Justino Martinez—to enhancing the quality of the article. The additional comments are addressed in detail in the attached document.
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Justino Martínez, 10 Jun 2025
Ok. Thanks... For me it's ok...
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-RC3 -
RC4: 'Reply on RC3', Justino Martínez, 10 Jun 2025
Once the changes are incorporated into the final paper, it can be published...
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-RC4 -
AC6: 'Reply on RC3', Clea Denamiel, 19 Jun 2025
Thank you.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-AC6
-
AC6: 'Reply on RC3', Clea Denamiel, 19 Jun 2025
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Clea Denamiel, 19 Jun 2025
Thank you.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-AC4 -
AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Clea Denamiel, 19 Jun 2025
Thank you.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-AC5 -
AC6: 'Reply on RC3', Clea Denamiel, 19 Jun 2025
Thank you.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-AC6
-
RC4: 'Reply on RC3', Justino Martínez, 10 Jun 2025
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Justino Martínez, 10 Jun 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Clea Denamiel, 09 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Justino Martínez, 05 Jun 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Clea Denamiel, 30 May 2025
-
RC5: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1363', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jun 2025
Review of Far-Future Climate Projection of the Adriatic Marine Heatwaves: a kilometre-scale experiment under extreme warming” by Cléa Denamiel.
This work presents an analysis of marine heatwave characteristics in the Adriatic Sea under historical conditions (1987–2017) and a far-future extreme warming scenario for 2070–2100 based on RCP 8.5.
I have two main comments about this paper. First, is that the author should better present, from the beginning, the methodology used (the Pseudo-Global Warming approach) together with the limitations of this approach. The description in the Methods section is rather succinct, and the presentation of what the limitations of this approach could be comes rather late in my opinion (it is mentioned in the introduction but the implications are not clear). My second comment is that there should be also a description of the differences between the historical and RCP8.5 runs, in terms of extrema, variability, intensity and trends. Without this we cannot put in context the differences observed between both runs presented in the paper.
Here are my comments in order of appearance:
Figure 1. I'd limit the bathymetry colorbar to the depths found in the Adriatic. As it is now, we can clearly see Thyrrhenian bathymetry which is irrelevant, and the Adriatic is rather homogeneous
Line 125-129. I find it confusing what it is mentioned about the shifting of the RCP8.5 results: is this only for visualisation purposes? Why is this done?
Line 147: "All the intensities": which intensities
Line 165: "deepest part": I'd suggest to add some bathymetry contours to Fig 2
Line 168: central eastern Adriatic: maybe refer to the pre-defined regions?
Figure 3. Add (left) and (right) to the description of panel (e) in the caption. The colors used in panels (a) and (b) are rather random. I would suggest to use shades of the same colours for each decade (e.g. shades of blue for the first decade, shades of orange for second decade and shades of purple for the last one. I would avoid red and green on the same figure). What are the dotted lines in panel (e)? (one is straight and the other seems to follow the histograms). The colours of the histograms represent the same thing as the numbers on the x-axis? and what about the height of the histograms? Because I do not understand why the yellow histograms for the monthly panel are higher than the RCP8.5 histograms but are still yellow.
Line 188. Here you mention for the first time that there are no MHWs for years 9-11 in both runs. This comes as a surprising fact, moreover since this happens in both runs, which makes it look suspicious that the PGW approach is not able to separate from the variability from the base/historical run. This is discussed in the Discussion section, but I think a brief comment (indicating this is fully described in the Discussion section) should be added here.
Line 200. Is the word skewed the correct one here? For me skewed indicates there is a bias/error in the data, and not just that it show a trend towards a specific value (which is what is mentioned here).
Line 222. Are MHWs less frequent in RCP8.5 because they are longer? (i.e. there is less time with no MHW so less possibilities for a new MHW to develop)
Line 223-225. I do not understand what the author refers to in this sentence. If it is what I think I understand, doesn't a correlation of 0.9 show again that the PGW is not effectively separating events from the historical run from the RCP8.5?
Figures 5 and 6. Again, there is a dotted line which is not described in the caption, and no units in the y-axis of panels a.b.c (left). What is bottom temperature and OHC *intensity* ?
Line 270. values of 0.25degC etc "above the climatology" I guess?
Figure 7. There is no description in the text of how the "percentage of events primarily driven by air-sea fluxes" is determined.
Line 326. I would not call these other studies "independent observations" since they might use the same datasets. Just "other studies" would be more adequate.
Line 374 and following: how are the percentage of changes in the discharges decided? Why is this not discussed in the Methods section?
Section 4.2.2 Here the author mentions the Easter Mediterranean Transient as a possible cause of the absence of MHW in years 9-11, but no proof or demonstration is given, so this is just a suggestion provided by the author that needs to be verified. Line 427 says no previous work has linked EMT to MHW suppression, but this work doesn't provide the link either. And again, the fact that the MHW absence is also noticed in the RCP8.5 run should be better explained as it reflects in my opinion that the PGW fails to detach from the base variability. There is some mention in line 447 but this should be made clearer before.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1363-RC5 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC5', Clea Denamiel, 13 Jun 2025
I would like to sincerely thank Reviewer #2 for the constructive review of the manuscript. The detailed and insightful comments were extremely helpful in restructuring the manuscript and clarifying the methodology. The detailed comments are addressed in the attached document.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC5', Clea Denamiel, 13 Jun 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Adriatic Marine Heatwaves extracted from the AdriSC climate model under historical and RCP 8.5 conditions Clea Denamiel https://osf.io/fhwxj/
Video supplement
Animation of the Adriatic Marine Heatwaves extracted from the AdriSC climate model under historical and RCP 8.5 conditions Clea Denamiel https://osf.io/ej8gq/
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
397 | 109 | 34 | 540 | 12 | 26 |
- HTML: 397
- PDF: 109
- XML: 34
- Total: 540
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 26
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Clea Lumina Denamiel
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3801 KB) - Metadata XML