the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantifying energy barriers associated with density stratification in vertical displacements of water parcels
Abstract. Density stratification affects mixing by limiting the interchange of properties along the water column. This stratification establishes barriers to the vertical displacement of water parcels, which interchange their properties between different layers of the ocean. Quantifying the intensity of these barriers, considering the direction (upward and downward) of the vertical displacement of a water parcel, is the main aim of this study. By employing the buoyancy energy required to displace a water parcel vertically, we propose the buoyancy potential energy (BPE) to analyze energy barriers in detail, describe the stability of a water parcel, and provide an objective integrated measure of stratification intensity in any vertical section of the water column. By illustrating the application of BPE in dynamical and ecological contexts, we demonstrate that it provides a complementary understanding of oceanic stratification. BPE is directly calculated from survey data, eliminating the need to diagnose turbulent processes, and has a straightforward numerical implementation. The routine application of BPE to study diverse ocean-atmosphere interaction processes (e.g., dynamical, thermodynamical, ecological, and biochemical) in which stratification plays a role can extend and enrich our understanding of them.
- Preprint
                                        (566 KB) 
- Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3359', Trevor McDougall, 28 Jul 2025
- 
                     CC1:  'Comment on egusphere-2025-3359', Stephen M. Griffies, 29 Aug 2025
            
                        
            
                            
                    
            
            
            
                        I read the fundamentals of this manuscript (i.e., the conceptual 
 parts). As I found flaws in the fundamentals, I did not read the
 details of the analysis.Recommendation: Reject Detailed comments I concur with McDougall's concern for the use of potential density as 
 the foundation for a bulk method to measure vertical stratification in
 the ocean. Granted, in many areas of the ocean there are no
 worries. But the high latitudes are a place where problems can occur.Instead of starting from first principles, the authors pick an 
 equation from Vallis (2006) that is not even the final expression he
 ends up with to measure stratification. Vallis (2006) concludes on
 his page 94 that a local measure of stratification is the vertical
 derivative of the locally referenced potential density. I appreciate
 that Moreles et al are seeking a bulk measure rather than a local
 measure. But when one goes bulk, more theoretical work is needed
 to formulate the theory and then to test its relevance in the real
 ocean.As coauthor of the Reichl et al (2022) potential energy paper, I was 
 disappointed that Moreles et al did not provide any specific comment
 on the novelty of their proposed method relative to Reichl et
 al. Indeed, Reichl et al develop a potential energy approach. They
 acknowledge the difficulties with the seawater equation of state and
 then test approximations that make use of potential density. The
 Reichl approach satisfies the goals of Moreles et al. by providing a
 bulk enegetics approach that only requires hydrographic data. So where
 does Reichl et al fail where Moreles et al succeed?I was also surprised by the absence of the Rosenthal and Roquet (2025) 
 paper, DOI: 10.1175/JPO-D-24-0078.1, who propose a center of mass
 approach to defining stratification. This approach has some relation
 to the Reichl et al potential energy approach.As a further critique, I must admit to being disappointed when authors 
 write down a mathematical expression that has physical dimensions and
 then claim those expressions are physically relevant without showing
 their corresponding equations of motion. There have been numerous
 attempts at providing a rational theory for ocean energetics, and they
 all get quite involved conceptually and mathematically. All of these
 details are relevant to the present question. One cannot presume to be
 presenting a new diagnostic without placing it within a theoretical
 context. Quite simply, stating that one is discussing forces and
 energies, without showing how they appear from first principles
 arguments, is not physics.Summary: I consider the Moreles et al manuscript to have the 
 following flaws that suggest to me that it should not be published.1/ Inaccurate theoretical foundation. In particular, the use of 
 potential density is problematic when considering bulk measures.
 Vallis noted this limitation two pages later than the page 92 quoted
 by Moreles as their starting point. McDougall's review provides more
 points to this regard.2/ Unclear use of physics. Writing down a math object that has 
 physical dimensions does not make it physical. This point is relevant
 to the claim by Moreles et al that they are writing down forces and
 energies when, however, they never write the corresponding equation of
 motion and equation of energy.3/ Incomplete literature survey. The recent literature has been 
 discussing energetic foundations for diagnosing vertical
 stratification. Moreles et al need to clearly identify the novelty of
 their manuscript. The papers by Reichl et al (2022) and Rosenthal and
 Roquet (2025) are central to the proposed Moreles et al approach.
 Reichl et al is cited by Moreles, but no theoretical or practical
 comparison is provided. Rosenthal and Roquet is not cited.4/ Minor point: I found the use of acronyms to be excessive. In 
 particular, there are many acronyms in the conclusion that are not
 defined within the conclusion. Many readers read the abstract than
 conclusions in that order, skipping the intermediate sections. Having
 undefined acronyms in the conclusion makes it tough to understand the
 main points of the manuscript. I strongly recommend greatly reducing
 the use of acronyms, except where they are community standards.Stephen Griffies 
 Princeton UniversityCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3359-CC1 
- 
                     RC2:  'Comment on egusphere-2025-3359', Stephen M. Griffies, 01 Sep 2025
            
                        
            
                            
                    
            
            
            
                        Please see my signed public comment posted 29 Aug 2025. Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3359-RC2 
Interactive computing environment
Scripts to calculate the buoyancy potential energy Efraín Moreles and Emmanuel Romero https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14911394
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,342 | 49 | 24 | 1,415 | 46 | 56 | 
- HTML: 1,342
- PDF: 49
- XML: 24
- Total: 1,415
- BibTeX: 46
- EndNote: 56
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % | 
|---|
| Total: | 0 | 
| HTML: | 0 | 
| PDF: | 0 | 
| XML: | 0 | 
- 1
 
 
                         
                         
                         
                        



 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                
The underlying equation, equation (1) of this paper is not correct. The paper cannot be published while this error exists. See the attached pdf.