the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 10 Sep 2026
Recent cooling of Atlantic Intermediate Waters in Kangertittivaq (Scoresby Sund) driven by large-scale advection and a glacial meltwater plume
Abstract. Ocean heat transport to marine terminating glaciers in Greenland exhibits interannual variability whose drivers remain incompletely understood. Using 2016–24 observations from Kangertittivaq, Greenland’s largest fjord system, we show that Atlantic Intermediate Water (AIW) that enters the fjord undergoes cooling throughout the fjord on interannual time scales, driven by advection of waters from the West Spitsbergen Current in Fram Strait. The strength of the subsurface inflow into Kangertertivarmit Kangertivat, the largest inner fjord branch, depicts distinct maxima in summertime, likely driven by entrainment of AIW into the meltwater plume of Daugaard-Jensen Glacier. Our study thus reveals that a superposition of large-scale advection and fjord meltwater dynamics facilitates the AIW cooling in the entire fjord system. We show that Kangertittivaq exhibits the same major AIW cooling event as 79N Glacier located 1000 km farther north, pointing to a common basin-scale forcing, synchronising ocean thermal conditions across a broad sector of the Greenland margin.
- Preprint
(5459 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5184', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Oct 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-5184/egusphere-2026-5184-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-5184-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5184', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Nov 2026
Review of “Recent cooling of Atlantic Intermediate Waters in Kangertittivaq (Scoresby Sound) driven by large-scale advection and a glacial meltwater plume” by Kanzow et al.
The manuscript addresses the hydrography and dynamics of the Kangertittivaq (Scoresby Sound), Greenland. The authors contend that variability in the warm Atlantic Intermediate Water (AIW) inside the sound and up to the glacier is largely a function of large scale advective controls that can be traced back to the West Spitsbergen Current. To make their case, the authors use a combination of multi-year mooring records from 2018-2022, shipboard snapshots during cruises in 2016, 2018, and 2022, float profiles, a glacier plume model and the FESOM2 forced ocean model.
The paper is an excellent contribution to the literature. The data in this paper are incredible, and the inferences made by the authors are interesting. I really enjoyed reviewing the paper, and the authors deserve much credit for building a clear narrative that weaves through so many different streams of data, that each have their own strengths and weaknesses. I was quite convinced of most of the findings in the paper, and I think the paper, when accepted, will be a great contribution to the literature. I have a few minor points that the authors should address prior to publication, but I do not believe these rise to the level of major revisions. Thus I recommend the paper be accepted pending minor revisions.
Larger-scale topics:
- I found the linkage of AIW variability to the West Spitsbergen Current surprising. I would have anticipated that the East Greenland Current (EGC) and East Greenland Coastal Current (EGCC) would exert the primary control on the shelf/fjord system rather than the offshore Atlantic waters. I understand that the layer considered here is the AIW, located below the Polar Surface Waters, but I am surprised that the relative thickness of the PSW does not influence the amount of AIW entering the sound. Could the authors clarify this point? And is the relationship to the West Spitsbergen Current really dictated by the temperature of the AIW or the amount of AIW that enters the Sound? Related to this point, could the lagged correlations be calculated at higher temporal resolution than annual? It seems like there could be much more information gleaned from a monthly lagged map.
- I do not understand why the authors claim that the fjord mouth waters are sourced from Blosseville Basin (L. 180-181) on rather scant evidence (Fig. 4), and then make the case that the AIW variability is set by the WSC, a completely different source region. I think it is more likely that the mouth waters are also sourced from northeast of the fjord, and the limited red circles along the East Greenland shelfbreak are an indicator of an advective pathway rather than a source region.
Edits/Clarifications:
L. 54: The temporal extent of each mooring deployment is not clear from the text here or Table 1. I suggest rewording the sentences here to clarify when each mooring was deployed and recovered, and to include that information in Table 1 as well.
L. 58: Three moorings are mentioned in this paragraph and then four are listed in Table 1. I suggest introducing Mooring IdF here.
Mooring “IdF” is not defined until line 98 but is mentioned in Table 1 and line 91.
Section 2.3: It is not clear why is is necessary to extend the 79N Glacier time series (at both moorings) until 2025. The Scoresby moorings were all recovered by 2022, so if the intent is to compare the two glacier systems, why are the 79N Glacier records extended to 2025?
Fig. 2c: is the entire salinity range shown? And why not use Absolute Salinity (g/kg)?
L. 171: remove “at”
L. 174: What evidence do the authors have that the East Greenland shelf waters are strongly stratified in winter? It is possible that the properties are more barotropic in the winter under ice.
L. 184: It is a shame the M mooring did not return usable ADCP data! Have the authors considered using an AUV to recover the lost ADCP?
Fig. 4: What are the straight lines on the East Greenland shelf? Surely these cannot be made from an Argo float.
L. 218-220: It is unclear if this two year time scale is an advective time scale (seems like a long time for advection over these spatial scales) or a time scale calculated from property anomalies. Can this be clarified?
L. 240: suggest including that 7.5 Gt/year equates to 0.24 mSv
L. 255: remove period after “heat flux”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5184-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 339 | 175 | 66 | 580 | 70 | 68 |
- HTML: 339
- PDF: 175
- XML: 66
- Total: 580
- BibTeX: 70
- EndNote: 68
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
