the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Asymmetric Response of Coastal Currents to Oscillating Alongshore Wind Stress over a Coastal Bank
Abstract. An asymmetric response of coastal currents to oscillating alongshore wind stress is observed over a coastal bank along the southern coast of Korea. Alongshore currents exhibit consistently larger variability in the western region than in the eastern region. Numerical experiments show that sea level reaches a maximum (minimum) in the western coastal region during westward (eastward) winds, leading to stronger cross-shore sea level gradients regardless of wind directions. Momentum balance analysis suggests that the alongshore pressure gradient force acts in the same direction as the wind stress in the western region but opposes it in the eastern region, resulting in stronger current acceleration in the west. The asymmetry arises from spatial differences in mass convergence and divergence driven by Ekman transport over bank topography. Although offshore currents and variations in the wind stress period and magnitude modulate the coastal circulation, the qualitative asymmetry persists. These findings suggest that similar current asymmetries may occur in other coastal regions with bank-like geometry. Understanding such asymmetric current responses to wind stress is essential for assessing their potential ecological impacts over coastal bank regions.
- Preprint
(2998 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 03 Jun 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-171', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Apr 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yang-Ki Cho, 29 Apr 2026
reply
General comment: The paper investigates an observed asymmetry in the response of coastal currents to fluctuating wind stress over a coastal bank offshore of Korea. Observations are supplemented with a realistic model in which the asymmetry persists. Using momentum balance analysis and an idealized model, the authors identify spatial differences in mass divergence driven by Ekman transport as the primary mechanism underlying the observed asymmetry. The findings are then generalized, accounting for differences in offshore circulation and wind patterns, suggesting that such asymmetries may not be limited to the study area. The paper is well-conceived, and the text and figures are generally clear. However, there are some structural inconsistencies and potential clarifications that warrant reconsideration.
Response: We thank the reviewer for the time and effort they spent reviewing this manuscript. Their feedback has helped improve the manuscript. Detailed responses to reviewers and the revised manuscript will be provided after the open discussion. In the meantime, responses to each comment are provided below.
Comment 1: The introduction of observations and the realistic model is a bit unclear.
Are the observations used from moorings? Is the surface bin from all stations a depth average between 0 and 1 (0.5) meters? During which period were the moorings deployed? Are the peaks in PSD statistically significant? And do the other stations differ significantly in terms of PSD from “B” and “F”?
The realistic ROMS model used is not introduced in detail; some fundamental properties and perhaps notes on previous validation efforts would be appropriate, especially given that they are from different runs than those in the cited paper.
Response: All observations were obtained from ADCP moorings. Measurements were taken at a depth of 4 m below the surface at all stations, except for station E, where measurements were taken at 2 m depth. The deployment periods for each mooring were as follows:
A: 2019-03-27 to 2019-09-26
B: 2019-03-20 to 2019-09-19
C: 2019-03-19 to 2019-10-09
D: 2019-03-27 to 2019-10-17
E: 2019-03-27 to 2019-10-17
F: 2019-03-21 to 2019-09-20
The spectral peak at a 7.5-day period in the PSD was evaluated using a Monte Carlo significance test with 1000 iterations. The 7.5-day peak is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level at all stations. However, the prominence of this peak varies among stations. At station D, the PSD is broadly distributed without a distinct peak, while at station E the 7.5-day peak is not clearly pronounced. The remaining stations exhibit a clear peak at a 7.5-day period.
The section describing the realistic model will be modified as follows:
2.2 Realistic model
A previously developed realistic model was used to address the limitations of the sparse observations and to examine the full spatial variability of the coastal currents (Jung and Cho, 2020). The model domain is identical to that of Jung and Cho (2020), except that the coastline and bathymetry along the southern coast of the Korean Peninsula are represented with less smoothing. The previous model successfully reproduced the upwelling pattern in the study area when compared with in situ observations. The initial conditions are taken from the output of the previous model. Starting from 2015, the final year of the previous simulation, the model was further integrated through 2019. Tidal forcing was omitted to isolate the intrinsic dynamical response of the wind-driven coastal current over the bank. All other model configurations, including atmospheric forcing and open boundary conditions, are identical to those used in the previous study. Further details of the model configuration are provided in Jung and Cho (2020).
Comment 2: The results and discussion may be restructured for easier readability.
Could the sections on adding offshore circulation and the sensitivity analysis be moved to the results section? In addition to these parts seeming well-suited to the results section, I believe the inclusion of so many figures distracts from other major discussion points. Much of the text in this section could remain relatively unchanged in the results section.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. In the revised manuscript, the relevant text and figures will be moved to the Results section.
Minor Comments:
Minor Comment 1: Have the observed current velocities and directions been correlated to the wind stress? Are all of these correlations significant? Are the peaks seen significant?
Response: The alongshore wind and observed currents, both defined as 20o counterclockwise from the west-east direction, are correlated and statistically significant (p-value < 0.05) at all stations except station E. The correlation coefficients at stations A, B, C, D, and F are 0.44, 0.57, 0.59, 0.46, and 0.42, respectively.
Minor Comment 2: There seems to be greater asymmetry in the observed locations than in the area averages. Is this due to sampling bias, some onshore-offshore gradient, or something else?
Response: The greater asymmetry at the observation locations likely reflects a combination of factors. It may partly arise from asymmetric bathymetry and the distribution of the observation locations. In addition, spatial averaging over a broader area tends to smooth out local variability, thereby reducing the apparent asymmetry in the area-averaged results.
Minor Comment 3: Is the spin-up period of the idealized model sufficiently long? Has this been tested?
Response: Yes. This was tested and confirmed that the kinetic energy reached an almost steady state.
Minor Comment 4: Any particular reason for writing the advection terms in the momentum equation in their conservative form? Are these the ones used for the computation? Could these equations be moved to the methods?
Response: Yes, the advection terms in the ROMS momentum equations are written and computed in flux form (conservative form). Since the equations and the related description are relatively concise, we consider it appropriate to keep them in the Momentum balance section.
Minor Comment 5: Interesting point on the variability of the Ekman layer and its potential impact on the observed asymmetry. Do sufficient observations or realistic model runs exist to investigate whether there could be significant seasonality or, in general, how representative the observational period presented is in this regard?
Response: Although the realistic model simulation produced results for the entire year, the observational data are available only for spring and summer. Therefore, we are unable to determine whether the observed asymmetry exhibits seasonal variability or how representative the observed period is.
Minor Comment 6: Interesting discussion on coastal waves and their potential impact, or lack thereof. I was wondering whether the interaction between the flow around the bank and the bank itself, potentially also influenced by wind stress, could excite topographic Rossby waves in your simulations (and observations) and thus be a third feasible explanation for the asymmetry? The topographic Rossby waves could, in theory, cause an asymmetric response under either wind direction. A depth-integrated PSD or wavelet analysis could perhaps help shed light on this.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this constructive and insightful comment. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we further analyzed the depth-averaged PSD. The results show a single dominant peak at 8 days, consistent with the surface current variability. Based on the conditions of the idealized model along the bank edge (depth of 30 m, buoyancy frequency of 0.02 s-1, and bottom slope of 0.0026), the estimated periods of TRWs under stratified conditions are approximately 1 day and 0.6 days for wavelengths of 50 km and 100 km, respectively. In addition, using the bottom drag coefficient (5x10-4 m s-1) applied in the idealized model, the corresponding spin-down timescale along the bank edge is approximately 0.7 days, suggesting that freely propagating TRWs would be strongly damped in this region. While TRWs may, in principle, be weakly excited and respond in a quasi-steady manner to alongshore wind forcing, their contribution is expected to be small. Therefore, TRWs are unlikely to contribute significantly to the observed asymmetry in surface currents over the bank.
Minor Comment 7: The following paragraph will be added to the discussion section (after line 276):
Another potential source of the asymmetry is topographic Rossby waves (TRWs), which can be generated through the interactions between the flow and bottom topography and may contribute to the asymmetric current responses. Under the conditions of the present idealized model along the bank edge (depth of 30 m, buoyancy frequency of 0.02 s-1, and bottom slope of 0.0026), the estimated TRW periods under stratified conditions (e.g., Ku et al., 2020; Rhines, 1970) are approximately 1 day and 0.6 days for wavelengths of 50 km and 100 km, respectively.
However, the power spectral densities (PSDs) of surface currents (Figures 13 and 14) and depth-averaged currents (not shown) consistently exhibit a single dominant peak at approximately 8 days, with no significant energy at shorter periods, including the intrinsic TRW timescales. In addition, given the bottom drag coefficient (5x10-4 m s-1) used in the idealized model, the associated spin-down timescale along the bank edge is approximately 0.7 days, indicating that freely propagating TRWs would be strongly damped in this region.
These results suggest that, although TRWs may be weakly excited and respond in a quasi-steady manner to alongshore wind forcing, their contribution is minimal. Therefore, TRWs are unlikely to play a significant role in the observed asymmetry.
References:
Ku, A., Seung, Y. H., Jeon, C., Choi, Y., Yoshizawa, E., Shimada, K., Cho, K.-H., and Park, J.-H.: Observation of Bottom-Trapped Topographic Rossby Waves on the Shelf Break of the Chukchi Sea, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 125, e2019JC015436, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JC015436, 2020.
Rhines, P.: Edge‐, bottom‐, and Rossby waves in a rotating stratified fluid, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, 1, 273–302, https://doi.org/10.1080/03091927009365776, 1970.
Minor Comment 8: Some of the font sizes in the figure labels are a bit small.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We will increase the font sizes in Figures 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-171-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yang-Ki Cho, 29 Apr 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 181 | 129 | 18 | 328 | 19 | 29 |
- HTML: 181
- PDF: 129
- XML: 18
- Total: 328
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 29
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The paper investigates an observed asymmetry in the response of coastal currents to fluctuating wind stress over a coastal bank offshore of Korea. Observations are supplemented with a realistic model in which the asymmetry persists. Using momentum balance analysis and an idealized model, the authors identify spatial differences in mass divergence driven by Ekman transport as the primary mechanism underlying the observed asymmetry. The findings are then generalized, accounting for differences in offshore circulation and wind patterns, suggesting that such asymmetries may not be limited to the study area. The paper is well-conceived, and the text and figures are generally clear. However, there are some structural inconsistencies and potential clarifications that warrant reconsideration.
Are the observations used from moorings? Is the surface bin from all stations a depth average between 0 and 1 (0.5) meters? During which period were the moorings deployed? Are the peaks in PSD statistically significant? And do the other stations differ significantly in terms of PSD from “B” and “F”?
The realistic ROMS model used is not introduced in detail; some fundamental properties and perhaps notes on previous validation efforts would be appropriate, especially given that they are from different runs than those in the cited paper.
Could the sections on adding offshore circulation and the sensitivity analysis be moved to the results section? In addition to these parts seeming well-suited to the results section, I believe the inclusion of so many figures distracts from other major discussion points. Much of the text in this section could remain relatively unchanged in the results section.
MINOR: