the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Intraseasonal Variability and Eddy-Induced Structural Modulation of the North Pacific Intermediate Water Revealed by Multi-Mooring Observations
Abstract. The North Pacific Intermediate Water (NPIW) plays a crucial role in modulating oceanic thermohaline circulation and biogeochemical processes. However, limited continuous observations have hindered the understanding of its short-term variability and structural response to mesoscale processes. This study investigates the intraseasonal structural variability of the NPIW and its modulation by mesoscale eddies, based on long-term mooring observations from three sites (M1–M3) across the western Pacific. The thickness of the NPIW displays substantial intraseasonal variability, dominated by an approximately 80-day period that is coherent among all mooring sites. Unlike previous studies that mainly focused on temperature and salinity anomalies, this work introduces NPIW thickness as a new structural diagnostic parameter to capture the vertical compression and expansion of the intermediate layer induced by eddy activity. The analysis identifies a strong inverse correlation between layer thickness and isopycnal-averaged salinity, demonstrating that anticyclonic (cyclonic) eddies correspond to thinner (thicker) and more saline (fresher) intermediate layers. Spatial composites further reveal that thickness variability is most pronounced near the western boundary, which may be associated with locally complex water mass exchange and mixing driven by eddies. These findings provide the first quantitative evidence of intraseasonal variability in NPIW thickness and highlight its role as a key indicator for diagnosing mesoscale–intermediate layer interactions in the North Pacific.
- Preprint
(4327 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 02 Jun 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6538', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Feb 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2025-6538/egusphere-2025-6538-RC1-supplement.pdfReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-6538-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6538', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Apr 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2025-6538/egusphere-2025-6538-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6538', Anonymous Referee #3, 13 May 2026
reply
This manuscript investigates the intraseasonal variability of the North Pacific Intermediate Water (NPIW) using multi-mooring observations. Considering the limited availability of long-term in situ measurements in the intermediate ocean, the dataset presented here is valuable and provides useful observational constraints on subsurface variability. The analyses are generally reasonable and the results contribute to a better understanding of NPIW variability. The introduction of NPIW thickness as a structural indicator is particularly interesting and represents a useful extension beyond traditional thermohaline analyses. This perspective helps to better interpret the response of intermediate water to mesoscale processes. But I have a few comments regarding clarity of definitions, and methodological description that should be addressed.Main Comments:1. The definition of NPIW could be clarified. Different criteria are used in the manuscript (e.g., 34.3 psu isohaline vs. salinity minimum). It would be helpful to briefly explain why 34.3 psu is chosen to define thickness. Is this threshold robust across regions? Would similar results be obtained with a slightly different value? A short discussion would improve clarity.2. In the Data and Methods section, three moorings are used. A schematic showing the vertical configuration of CTD sensors would be very helpful. This would allow readers to better evaluate whether the vertical resolution is sufficient. In addition, please provide a bit more detail on data processing (e.g., interpolation and filtering methods).3. In Section 3.2, the salinity variability at M1 (34.12–34.16 psu) is much smaller than at M2 and M3. A brief explanation would be useful. This could be related to regional hydrographic conditions or differences in dynamical influence.4. The variability is mainly attributed to mesoscale eddies, which is reasonable. However, it would strengthen the paper to briefly discuss other possible contributors. For example, could remotely forced signals (e.g., Rossby waves) also play a role at similar timescales? A short discussion would help justify the interpretation.5. The discussion would benefit from a clearer assessment of the relative roles of vertical displacement (isopycnal heaving) and horizontal advection/mixing in driving the observed NPIW variability. In particular, can the authors further clarify under what conditions (or at which mooring sites) each mechanism is dominant? Additionally, are there observational indicators (e.g., phase relationships, vertical coherence, or spatial patterns) that could help distinguish between these processes?Specific Comments:1. The line color in Fig. 4b is inconsistent with Fig. 4a. Please revise for consistency.2. In Fig. 3, the salinity shading at M1 appears discontinuous. This may be due to the sparse vertical resolution of the CTDs, which might not fully capture the salinity minimum. In this case, the averaged line may be misleading. It is suggested to reconsider or remove the averaged salinity line for clarity.3. Line 438: the symbol “/” better replaced with “and”Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-6538-RC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 673 | 294 | 89 | 1,056 | 70 | 107 |
- HTML: 673
- PDF: 294
- XML: 89
- Total: 1,056
- BibTeX: 70
- EndNote: 107
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1