the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 06 Jan 2026
The Scotland-Canada overturning array (SCOTIA): twenty years of meridional overturning in the subpolar North Atlantic
Abstract. The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is expected to decline dramatically over the 21st century, with severe impacts for northern hemisphere climate. After 20 years of sustained monitoring in the subtropics, a detectable AMOC weakening trend is now beginning to emerge. However, continuous observations at subpolar latitudes are currently too short-lived to determine any weakening signal above the large-amplitude the interannual variability. Here, we introduce a new subpolar observing array, SCOTIA (Scotland-Canada overturning array), combining parts of the existing OSNAP mooring array with scattered CTD and Argo data, to extend the record of subpolar AMOC backward in time to cover the subtropical monitoring period, 2004 to 2024. SCOTIA facilitates a rigorous comparison of the decadal-scale variability in transports and overturning at subpolar and subtropic latitudes. Our results show subpolar AMOC varies on pentadal to decadal timescales with an amplitude comparable to that observed in the subtropics. Anomalously high overturning during 2016–2020 was driven by increased southward transports in the density classes associated with Labrador Sea Water. We find no statistically significant trend in subpolar AMOC during the period 2004 to 2024.
-
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
(2610 KB)
-
Supplement
(1738 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2610 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1738 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6176', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Feb 2026
Review of The Scotland-Canada overturning array (SCOTIA): twenty years of meridional overturning in the subpolar North Atlantic
By Alan D. Fox, Neil J. Fraser, Kristin Burmeister, Sam C. Jones, Stuart A. Cunningham, Lewis A. Drysdale, Ahmad Fehmi Dilmahamod, and Johannes Karstensen
General comments
The manuscript introduces a new transatlantic section, the Scotland-Canada overturning array (SCOTIA), to compute subpolar overturning transports combining existing moorings from the OSNAP array, CTD profiles, Argo data, satellite ADT, and GLORYS reanalysis. One of the main advantages of this new estimate is that the monthly gridded merged product to analyze AMOC variability on SCOTIA extends the subpolar AMOC record back in time before the OSNAP measurements started providing the possibility of analyzing long-term AMOC variability and trends at subpolar latitudes.
The extended record at SCOTIA is compared with the twenty year (2004-2024) AMOC record at 26N from the RAPID array and with the ten year record (2014-2024) from OSNAP in the subtropical and subpolar North Atlantic, respectively. Five key metrics (maximum of overturning streamfunction, density at which this maximum occurs, northward heat and freshwater transports, and density flux) are analyzed to validate SCOTIA against OSNAP on seasonal and longer time scales. SCOTIA provides an overturning structure and variability consistent with that from the full OSNAP array, offering an alternative configuration for observing subpolar AMOC and the associated heat and freshwater fluxes, allowing near-real-time updates to be generated based on the latest Argo and satellite data following mooring recovery. Given the logistical and funding difficulties often associated with maintaining sustained ocean monitoring systems, these results offer and alternative way of estimating AMOC transports in the subpolar North Atlantic with a focus on decadal and longer variability, and to extend the AMOC record back in time before OSNAP started. One of the main results from SCOTIA is that subpolar AMOC varies on pentadal to decadal timescales with an amplitude comparable to that observed in the subtropical North Atlantic.
These analyses are very valuable and useful for the AMOC community. The manuscript is well written and well organized. My impression is that the manuscript could benefit from more discussions or clarifications on to what extent SCOTIA relies on the actual mooring design at OSNAP, and if possibly SCOTIA could serve to inform alternate, or minimal, OSNAP array design. Please find some specific comments below.
Specific comments:
Line 50: it may be useful to mention here that the resulting blended gridded product has monthly temporal resolution (compared to the daily resolution from OSNAP). Line 5 and other places: I am hesitant if SCOTIA should be considered as a "new subpolar observing array" or as an alternate blended product based on combinations of in situ hydrographic profiles, moorings, satellite altimetry, and reanalyses products.
Lines 125-127: Are there are attempts to regionally validate GLORYS temperature, salinity and velocity data near the shelf?
Lines 233-243, and other places: Given that all OSNAP mooring data are included on the SCOTIA estimates, I suggest adding some discussion on how independent are OSNAP and SCOTIA time series, and how this may impact the interpretation of the correlation coefficients.
Could tests for minimal array design be done?
Line 235: please clarify, SCOTIA MOC shows higher variability compared to OSNAP MOC on which time scales?
Figure 4a, 4b (MOC or maximum overturning and density of maximum overturning, respectively), Line 245, and other places: please mention which correlation coefficients are statistically significant. SCOTIA and OSNAP (MOC) records agree fairly well with a correlation of ~0.66. The correlation considering the density of maximum overturning diminishes to nearly 0.3, implying that a small portion of the variance is shared between the two compared records. Visual inspection of the time series shown in 4b indicates that sometimes the records are out of phase.
I suggest adding more interpretation for the comparisons in Figure 4a and Figure 4b.
Figure 3b: There is little discussion in the text about the comparisons of the MOC seasonal cycles from SCOTIA and OSNAP. Is it possible to separate the seasonality from the interior transport and from the Ekman component?
I suggest adding a comparison of the seasonal cycles from the heat and freshwater transport to better understand the overturning variability from both estimates at seasonal timescales.
Line 252: correlations for the density of the maximum streamfunctions are slightly lower that this value.
Lines 264-274: How dependent is SCOTIA estimate on the maintenance of the full mooring array in the future? Could SCOTIA be used to inform a minimal or reduced array design for maintenance in the future?
Figures:
Figure 1: it may be useful to add schematics of the main ocean currents and pathways to better illustrate the dynamical connections between the arrays in the North Atlantic.
Figure 2: panel b: I suggest using different colour for the CTD (black dots) and mooring (vertical black lines) profiles respectively, to better appreciate the spatial and temporal distribution of the different data sources.
panel d: please indicate in the figure caption what shading represents.
Figure 3: please add in the Figure caption that these comparisons are made for the OSNAP period 2014-2022. How does the SCOTIA MOC seasonal cycle for the full period since 2004 compare to the estimate between 2014-2022?
Figure 4: Please indicate in the figure caption what blue shading represents.
Technical corrections:
Line 4: remove “the” between “amplitude” and “interannual”
Line 13: I suggest adding “in the upper ocean” for the transport of warm water northward or an indication that this text refers to the upper limb of the AMOC.
Line 21: I suggest highlighting that these are continuous daily observations
Line 29: revise referencing --> (McCarthy et al., 2025).
Line 51: To generate the corresponding velocity field…
Line 397: Please remove one “either”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6176-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Neil Fraser, 12 Mar 2026
Please see attachment in reply to editor comment
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6176-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Neil Fraser, 12 Mar 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6176', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Feb 2026
General comments:
This paper introduces a new subpolar overturning array, SCOTIA. The array uses part of the OSNAP mooring array, but runs south of Greenland and additionally makes use of CTD, ARGO and reanalysis data. One of the added values of this array is that it allows to reconstruct subpolar overturning for the last 20 years, and therefore to compare it over this entire time period with subtropical overturning at RAPID. Additionally, it could provide a lightweight option for continued subpolar overturning monitoring.
This is a high quality paper, and the 20 year timeseries of subpolar overturning at the OSTIA section will likely be of interest for everyone working on overturning in the subpolar north Atlantic and meridional connectivity of the AMOC. I found the methods section very comprehensive, and the graphics very good. I would recommend the paper to be published with minor revisions. My comments can be found below, divided in minor comments and typos.
Minor comments
L220 : What are “these processes”? Does it refer to processes mentioned a few sentences before? Maybe repeat in the sentence to clarify.
L244: I do not understand what is meant with “increased power of the two sections”. Do you mean that there is added value in using the two sections rather than one? Maybe reformulate / clarify what is meant.
L251: Here, the authors write that heat fluxes show the least correlation of all metrics studied between scotia and osnap. However, the correlation given here (r=0.352) is higher than the correlation found for the density of maximum overturning (r=0.320, L245), which was described as “showing many similarities” between the two time series
L373-379: I am a little bit confused here about the discussion on the definition of LSW with a fixed density range. The authors first say that according to fig 9, the most prominent feature of low frequency overturning at SCOTIA is increased southwards transport in the denser LSW class between 2014-2022. They link this to results from Yashayaev et al 2024 showing LSW formation over that same time period. They then move on to ask why results in fig 8 suggest that the most variability takes place instead in the deep overflow waters, and attribute this discrepancy to the definition of LSW with a fixed density range. I’m a bit confused because this fixed density range is also applied in fig 9, where we clearly see the increase in transport in the denser LSW class. Why is the fixed density range an issue for fig 8 but not fig 9? I must be missing or misunderstanding something, and it would be nice if the authors could clarify this paragraph.
L 399-403 The authors identify an anomalously high overturning at SCOTIA in 2016-2020, which they associated with increased Labrador Sea Water southwards transport. Is that a result that necessitated the use of SCOTIA, or could it also have been inferred from the existing OSNAP observations (given that the time period is covered by OSNAP)? If so, it would be nice to more clearly state what the role of SCOTIA (the longer timeseries allow to put this higher overturning in a broader context?) is in this result.
L409 Similarly, I would appreciate a little more information on the role of specifically the use of SCOTIA in this result. Is this a result that is made possible specifically by the use of SCOTIA, because it provides a longer timeseries for instance, or is it a side result, that is demonstrated here with SCOTIA but could have been deduced from other available data? I think more clearly connecting these results with the use of SCOTIA would strengthen the case for the usefulness of this new array.
L415 Here the authors say that the SCOTIA array, because of its position, cannot discriminate between convection in the Irminger and Labrador basins. Could this impossibility to discriminate between different basins create issues in the previous discussion, which focuses on the Labrador Sea only?
Typos / reference issues
L4 : Either an “of” is missing or there’s a “the” too much
L8: “subtropics” should likely be “subtropical”
L25: should “be” be “been”?
L50: Missing “the”
L51: “generate corresponding the velocity field”, the “the” is misplaced
L54: “extending back 2004”, is a “to” missing?
L127: The reference uses the first name, not family name of the author. The issue is also present L505 in the reference list. For that item, the first names of authors and the first letter of their family name are listed rather than the contrary.
L222: An “are” seems to be missing
L228: “Figs. 3” should be “Fig. 3”
L275: Should there be a 4.1 here? This part has heading 4. , then several paragraphs, then heading 4.1(L319), but no 4.2 . Adding a 4.1 heading here might also help the reader in identifying the arguments made in each part.
L349 “Susan Lozier et al, 2022” should be “Lozier et al 2022”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6176-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Neil Fraser, 12 Mar 2026
Please see attachment in reply to editor comment
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6176-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Neil Fraser, 12 Mar 2026
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6176', Sjoerd Groeskamp, 06 Mar 2026
Dear Fox et al.,
Two reviewers have provided positive feedback for this paper.
Attached below are also the comments from a third anonymous reviewer.
I would like you to address these comments in a similar way as the other two review comments into a revised manuscript, to be considered for publication in Ocean Science.
As a personal note, I would like the authors to rethink the message that this piece of text in the conclusion might send to the community.There is, however, an urgent need to make ocean observing more sustainable, as reflected by changes to funding landscapes and government priorities across the North Atlantic towards reduced ship-time, lower emissions, and greater use of autonomous and low-cost platforms. Under these constraints, it is far from clear that the present AMOC monitoring infrastructure can be maintained in the long term. SCOTIA provides a blueprint for a lightweight, reliable and sustainable subpolar AMOC observing system for the coming decades.”I understand the advantages of SCOTIA for going further back in time, which is great. Or perhaps even as an additional array so more details about the AMOC could be understood. However, to me these sentences do suggest too much that SCOTIA is suggested as a replacement for OSNAP. Even though it is said above that it should not. I will not hold this against you but would like you to think about potentially rephrasing this paragraph more carefully
All the best,
Sjoerd Groeskamp
--- third reviewer ---
Title: The Scotland-Canada overturning array (SCOTIA): twenty years of meridional overturning in the subpolar North Atlantic
Author(s): Alan D. Fox et al.
MS No.: egusphere-2025-6176
MS type: Research article
- The authors main result, namely that they find “no statistically significant MOC decline in the 20-year SCOTIA record”should be set in the context of other work in the subpolar North Atlantic that has focused on trends, notably the following:
Fu, Y., Li, F., Karstensen, J., Wang, C. (2020), A stable Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in a changing North Atlantic since the 1990s, Science Advances, 6, eabc7836.
- In the introduction, the authors write:
Furthermore, the OSNAP section crosses a region with more complex topography than at RAPID, so relies more heavily on direct velocity observations in several narrow, barotropic boundary currents. As a result, the OSNAP array is highly resource intensive, currently comprising around 50 hydrographic moorings compared to just 9 at RAPID.
I think it would be fair to mention that the resource intensive array delivers more than expense. The arrays allow for the separation of the Labrador Sea overturning, separate from that in the eastern subpolar North Atlantic. They also allow for the measurement of freshwater transport along both sides of Greenland, and for a measure of the overflow transports downstream of the Greenland-Scotland Ridge. While two of these are mentioned in section 5, I think it is important to point out these advantages in the Introduction, otherwise only the downside (the expense) is stressed.
- In section 5 (Discussion), the authors write:
By omitting observations of the boundary currents around Greenland, the SCOTIA methodology cannot discriminate between convection in the Irminger and Labrador Basins (Lozier et al., 2019), or capture signals in the overflow transports immediately downstream of the Greenland-Scotland Ridge (Koman et al., 2024). SCOTIA should not, therefore, be considered a substitute for the OSNAP array, which resolves these features, but rather an additional, partially independent measure of subpolar overturning with the advantage of providing a longer-term perspective.
While this discussion is generally fine, I think it is important to also mention that OSNAP allows for the monitoring of the freshwater fluxes on both sides of Greenland. This monitoring is particularly relevant given our expectation of increasingly fresh water along the Greenland shelves/slopes in the years ahead.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6176-EC1 - AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Neil Fraser, 12 Mar 2026
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6176', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Feb 2026
Review of The Scotland-Canada overturning array (SCOTIA): twenty years of meridional overturning in the subpolar North Atlantic
By Alan D. Fox, Neil J. Fraser, Kristin Burmeister, Sam C. Jones, Stuart A. Cunningham, Lewis A. Drysdale, Ahmad Fehmi Dilmahamod, and Johannes Karstensen
General comments
The manuscript introduces a new transatlantic section, the Scotland-Canada overturning array (SCOTIA), to compute subpolar overturning transports combining existing moorings from the OSNAP array, CTD profiles, Argo data, satellite ADT, and GLORYS reanalysis. One of the main advantages of this new estimate is that the monthly gridded merged product to analyze AMOC variability on SCOTIA extends the subpolar AMOC record back in time before the OSNAP measurements started providing the possibility of analyzing long-term AMOC variability and trends at subpolar latitudes.
The extended record at SCOTIA is compared with the twenty year (2004-2024) AMOC record at 26N from the RAPID array and with the ten year record (2014-2024) from OSNAP in the subtropical and subpolar North Atlantic, respectively. Five key metrics (maximum of overturning streamfunction, density at which this maximum occurs, northward heat and freshwater transports, and density flux) are analyzed to validate SCOTIA against OSNAP on seasonal and longer time scales. SCOTIA provides an overturning structure and variability consistent with that from the full OSNAP array, offering an alternative configuration for observing subpolar AMOC and the associated heat and freshwater fluxes, allowing near-real-time updates to be generated based on the latest Argo and satellite data following mooring recovery. Given the logistical and funding difficulties often associated with maintaining sustained ocean monitoring systems, these results offer and alternative way of estimating AMOC transports in the subpolar North Atlantic with a focus on decadal and longer variability, and to extend the AMOC record back in time before OSNAP started. One of the main results from SCOTIA is that subpolar AMOC varies on pentadal to decadal timescales with an amplitude comparable to that observed in the subtropical North Atlantic.
These analyses are very valuable and useful for the AMOC community. The manuscript is well written and well organized. My impression is that the manuscript could benefit from more discussions or clarifications on to what extent SCOTIA relies on the actual mooring design at OSNAP, and if possibly SCOTIA could serve to inform alternate, or minimal, OSNAP array design. Please find some specific comments below.
Specific comments:
Line 50: it may be useful to mention here that the resulting blended gridded product has monthly temporal resolution (compared to the daily resolution from OSNAP). Line 5 and other places: I am hesitant if SCOTIA should be considered as a "new subpolar observing array" or as an alternate blended product based on combinations of in situ hydrographic profiles, moorings, satellite altimetry, and reanalyses products.
Lines 125-127: Are there are attempts to regionally validate GLORYS temperature, salinity and velocity data near the shelf?
Lines 233-243, and other places: Given that all OSNAP mooring data are included on the SCOTIA estimates, I suggest adding some discussion on how independent are OSNAP and SCOTIA time series, and how this may impact the interpretation of the correlation coefficients.
Could tests for minimal array design be done?
Line 235: please clarify, SCOTIA MOC shows higher variability compared to OSNAP MOC on which time scales?
Figure 4a, 4b (MOC or maximum overturning and density of maximum overturning, respectively), Line 245, and other places: please mention which correlation coefficients are statistically significant. SCOTIA and OSNAP (MOC) records agree fairly well with a correlation of ~0.66. The correlation considering the density of maximum overturning diminishes to nearly 0.3, implying that a small portion of the variance is shared between the two compared records. Visual inspection of the time series shown in 4b indicates that sometimes the records are out of phase.
I suggest adding more interpretation for the comparisons in Figure 4a and Figure 4b.
Figure 3b: There is little discussion in the text about the comparisons of the MOC seasonal cycles from SCOTIA and OSNAP. Is it possible to separate the seasonality from the interior transport and from the Ekman component?
I suggest adding a comparison of the seasonal cycles from the heat and freshwater transport to better understand the overturning variability from both estimates at seasonal timescales.
Line 252: correlations for the density of the maximum streamfunctions are slightly lower that this value.
Lines 264-274: How dependent is SCOTIA estimate on the maintenance of the full mooring array in the future? Could SCOTIA be used to inform a minimal or reduced array design for maintenance in the future?
Figures:
Figure 1: it may be useful to add schematics of the main ocean currents and pathways to better illustrate the dynamical connections between the arrays in the North Atlantic.
Figure 2: panel b: I suggest using different colour for the CTD (black dots) and mooring (vertical black lines) profiles respectively, to better appreciate the spatial and temporal distribution of the different data sources.
panel d: please indicate in the figure caption what shading represents.
Figure 3: please add in the Figure caption that these comparisons are made for the OSNAP period 2014-2022. How does the SCOTIA MOC seasonal cycle for the full period since 2004 compare to the estimate between 2014-2022?
Figure 4: Please indicate in the figure caption what blue shading represents.
Technical corrections:
Line 4: remove “the” between “amplitude” and “interannual”
Line 13: I suggest adding “in the upper ocean” for the transport of warm water northward or an indication that this text refers to the upper limb of the AMOC.
Line 21: I suggest highlighting that these are continuous daily observations
Line 29: revise referencing --> (McCarthy et al., 2025).
Line 51: To generate the corresponding velocity field…
Line 397: Please remove one “either”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6176-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Neil Fraser, 12 Mar 2026
Please see attachment in reply to editor comment
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6176-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Neil Fraser, 12 Mar 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6176', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Feb 2026
General comments:
This paper introduces a new subpolar overturning array, SCOTIA. The array uses part of the OSNAP mooring array, but runs south of Greenland and additionally makes use of CTD, ARGO and reanalysis data. One of the added values of this array is that it allows to reconstruct subpolar overturning for the last 20 years, and therefore to compare it over this entire time period with subtropical overturning at RAPID. Additionally, it could provide a lightweight option for continued subpolar overturning monitoring.
This is a high quality paper, and the 20 year timeseries of subpolar overturning at the OSTIA section will likely be of interest for everyone working on overturning in the subpolar north Atlantic and meridional connectivity of the AMOC. I found the methods section very comprehensive, and the graphics very good. I would recommend the paper to be published with minor revisions. My comments can be found below, divided in minor comments and typos.
Minor comments
L220 : What are “these processes”? Does it refer to processes mentioned a few sentences before? Maybe repeat in the sentence to clarify.
L244: I do not understand what is meant with “increased power of the two sections”. Do you mean that there is added value in using the two sections rather than one? Maybe reformulate / clarify what is meant.
L251: Here, the authors write that heat fluxes show the least correlation of all metrics studied between scotia and osnap. However, the correlation given here (r=0.352) is higher than the correlation found for the density of maximum overturning (r=0.320, L245), which was described as “showing many similarities” between the two time series
L373-379: I am a little bit confused here about the discussion on the definition of LSW with a fixed density range. The authors first say that according to fig 9, the most prominent feature of low frequency overturning at SCOTIA is increased southwards transport in the denser LSW class between 2014-2022. They link this to results from Yashayaev et al 2024 showing LSW formation over that same time period. They then move on to ask why results in fig 8 suggest that the most variability takes place instead in the deep overflow waters, and attribute this discrepancy to the definition of LSW with a fixed density range. I’m a bit confused because this fixed density range is also applied in fig 9, where we clearly see the increase in transport in the denser LSW class. Why is the fixed density range an issue for fig 8 but not fig 9? I must be missing or misunderstanding something, and it would be nice if the authors could clarify this paragraph.
L 399-403 The authors identify an anomalously high overturning at SCOTIA in 2016-2020, which they associated with increased Labrador Sea Water southwards transport. Is that a result that necessitated the use of SCOTIA, or could it also have been inferred from the existing OSNAP observations (given that the time period is covered by OSNAP)? If so, it would be nice to more clearly state what the role of SCOTIA (the longer timeseries allow to put this higher overturning in a broader context?) is in this result.
L409 Similarly, I would appreciate a little more information on the role of specifically the use of SCOTIA in this result. Is this a result that is made possible specifically by the use of SCOTIA, because it provides a longer timeseries for instance, or is it a side result, that is demonstrated here with SCOTIA but could have been deduced from other available data? I think more clearly connecting these results with the use of SCOTIA would strengthen the case for the usefulness of this new array.
L415 Here the authors say that the SCOTIA array, because of its position, cannot discriminate between convection in the Irminger and Labrador basins. Could this impossibility to discriminate between different basins create issues in the previous discussion, which focuses on the Labrador Sea only?
Typos / reference issues
L4 : Either an “of” is missing or there’s a “the” too much
L8: “subtropics” should likely be “subtropical”
L25: should “be” be “been”?
L50: Missing “the”
L51: “generate corresponding the velocity field”, the “the” is misplaced
L54: “extending back 2004”, is a “to” missing?
L127: The reference uses the first name, not family name of the author. The issue is also present L505 in the reference list. For that item, the first names of authors and the first letter of their family name are listed rather than the contrary.
L222: An “are” seems to be missing
L228: “Figs. 3” should be “Fig. 3”
L275: Should there be a 4.1 here? This part has heading 4. , then several paragraphs, then heading 4.1(L319), but no 4.2 . Adding a 4.1 heading here might also help the reader in identifying the arguments made in each part.
L349 “Susan Lozier et al, 2022” should be “Lozier et al 2022”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6176-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Neil Fraser, 12 Mar 2026
Please see attachment in reply to editor comment
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6176-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Neil Fraser, 12 Mar 2026
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6176', Sjoerd Groeskamp, 06 Mar 2026
Dear Fox et al.,
Two reviewers have provided positive feedback for this paper.
Attached below are also the comments from a third anonymous reviewer.
I would like you to address these comments in a similar way as the other two review comments into a revised manuscript, to be considered for publication in Ocean Science.
As a personal note, I would like the authors to rethink the message that this piece of text in the conclusion might send to the community.There is, however, an urgent need to make ocean observing more sustainable, as reflected by changes to funding landscapes and government priorities across the North Atlantic towards reduced ship-time, lower emissions, and greater use of autonomous and low-cost platforms. Under these constraints, it is far from clear that the present AMOC monitoring infrastructure can be maintained in the long term. SCOTIA provides a blueprint for a lightweight, reliable and sustainable subpolar AMOC observing system for the coming decades.”I understand the advantages of SCOTIA for going further back in time, which is great. Or perhaps even as an additional array so more details about the AMOC could be understood. However, to me these sentences do suggest too much that SCOTIA is suggested as a replacement for OSNAP. Even though it is said above that it should not. I will not hold this against you but would like you to think about potentially rephrasing this paragraph more carefully
All the best,
Sjoerd Groeskamp
--- third reviewer ---
Title: The Scotland-Canada overturning array (SCOTIA): twenty years of meridional overturning in the subpolar North Atlantic
Author(s): Alan D. Fox et al.
MS No.: egusphere-2025-6176
MS type: Research article
- The authors main result, namely that they find “no statistically significant MOC decline in the 20-year SCOTIA record”should be set in the context of other work in the subpolar North Atlantic that has focused on trends, notably the following:
Fu, Y., Li, F., Karstensen, J., Wang, C. (2020), A stable Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in a changing North Atlantic since the 1990s, Science Advances, 6, eabc7836.
- In the introduction, the authors write:
Furthermore, the OSNAP section crosses a region with more complex topography than at RAPID, so relies more heavily on direct velocity observations in several narrow, barotropic boundary currents. As a result, the OSNAP array is highly resource intensive, currently comprising around 50 hydrographic moorings compared to just 9 at RAPID.
I think it would be fair to mention that the resource intensive array delivers more than expense. The arrays allow for the separation of the Labrador Sea overturning, separate from that in the eastern subpolar North Atlantic. They also allow for the measurement of freshwater transport along both sides of Greenland, and for a measure of the overflow transports downstream of the Greenland-Scotland Ridge. While two of these are mentioned in section 5, I think it is important to point out these advantages in the Introduction, otherwise only the downside (the expense) is stressed.
- In section 5 (Discussion), the authors write:
By omitting observations of the boundary currents around Greenland, the SCOTIA methodology cannot discriminate between convection in the Irminger and Labrador Basins (Lozier et al., 2019), or capture signals in the overflow transports immediately downstream of the Greenland-Scotland Ridge (Koman et al., 2024). SCOTIA should not, therefore, be considered a substitute for the OSNAP array, which resolves these features, but rather an additional, partially independent measure of subpolar overturning with the advantage of providing a longer-term perspective.
While this discussion is generally fine, I think it is important to also mention that OSNAP allows for the monitoring of the freshwater fluxes on both sides of Greenland. This monitoring is particularly relevant given our expectation of increasingly fresh water along the Greenland shelves/slopes in the years ahead.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6176-EC1 - AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Neil Fraser, 12 Mar 2026
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,241 | 1,398 | 142 | 3,781 | 262 | 90 | 98 |
- HTML: 2,241
- PDF: 1,398
- XML: 142
- Total: 3,781
- Supplement: 262
- BibTeX: 90
- EndNote: 98
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Discussed
Alan D. Fox
Kristin Burmeister
Sam C. Jones
Stuart A. Cunningham
Lewis A. Drysdale
Ahmad Fehmi Dilmahamod
Johannes Karstensen
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2610 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1738 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper