Is deoxygenation detectable before warming in the thermocline?

Hameau, Angélique; Frölicher, Thomas L.; Mignot, Juliette; Joos, Fortunat

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1877-2020

Articles | Volume 17, issue 7

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1877-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Ocean deoxygenation: drivers and consequences – past, present...

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1877-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 7

Research article

|

07 Apr 2020

Research article |

| 07 Apr 2020

Is deoxygenation detectable before warming in the thermocline?

Angélique Hameau, Thomas L. Frölicher, Juliette Mignot, and Fortunat Joos

Download

Final revised paper (published on 07 Apr 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 03 Sep 2019)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Referee comment on Hameau et. al. 2019, “ Is deoxygenation detectable before warming in the thermocline?”', Sarah Schlunegger, 17 Oct 2019
- AC1: 'Reply', Angélique Hameau, 19 Nov 2019
RC2: 'Reviewer's comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Oct 2019
- AC2: 'Reply', Angélique Hameau, 19 Nov 2019
RC3: 'Review of "Is deoxygenation detectable before warming in the thermocline?"', Anonymous Referee #3, 23 Oct 2019
- AC3: 'Reply', Angélique Hameau, 19 Nov 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (09 Dec 2019) by Kenneth Rose

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (10 Dec 2019) by Kenneth Rose

AR by Angélique Hameau on behalf of the Authors (06 Jan 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (09 Jan 2020) by Kenneth Rose

RR by M. Li (27 Jan 2020)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (05 Feb 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Comments on Revised Manuscript Hameau et. al.

The authors did substantial revision and clarification following reviewers comments.
I think now the aim of the study and the results are more clear and I really like the
detailed explanation on methods section and schematic explanation in Figure A1.
Despite the fact that ToE metric it self has numerous discussion, I think the multi-tracer
ToE discussion in this study will be useful for the Large Ensemble Simulations and CMIP6 analysis.

At this point I only have minor (specific) comments before publication.

Specific Comments

Section 3.2 (relative vs. absolute ToE): I would like to thank the authors for detailed
reply and overall I understood the concept and advantage of relative ToE, basically
allows to better compare the common patterns among the models because you remove the
global mean bias. I wanted to further clarify but this means that the difference in
relative ToE magnitudes among the models stem from mainly "regional model bias" correct
(I would guess not everything)? I was still thinking of interpreting what causes the
differences in relative ToE magnitudes among models and I would like further comments
from the authors (and add one or two sentences in the main text if necessary).

P10, L17-18: ... in accordance with (Levitus ... ), minor editorial thing but do you
need parenthesis here?

Abstract L5 & P16, L19: The authors did an excellent work on revising and checking the
consistency in terminology ("internal variability) and thank you for addressing this. These
are additional details but are the "natural variability" in the abstract and P16 also suppose
to be "internal variability" or did you intend to leave these as "natural variability"?

Figure 6, caption: From the caption sentence it is obvious what ΔToE is but I would still
suggest to be more clear stating ΔToE = ToE(T)-ToE(O2) in the caption (if I did not miss,
I also did not see what ΔToE is defined as in the main text).

Figure 7, i), label: "CESM 1.0" -> Is this suppose to be "CESM 1.0-RCP8.5"?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (13 Feb 2020) by Kenneth Rose

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (13 Feb 2020) by Katja Fennel (Co-editor-in-chief)

AR by Angélique Hameau on behalf of the Authors (18 Feb 2020) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (18981 KB)
Full-text XML

Supplement (108689 KB)
BibTeX
EndNote

Short summary

Ocean deoxygenation and warming are observed and projected to intensify under continued greenhouse gas emissions. Whereas temperature is considered the main climate change indicator, we show that in certain regions, thermocline doxygenation may be detectable before warming.