Storyboard #37
Comments
|
Figure 1: Experimental design (enhancing/relaxation of climatological wind field) |
|
I've also added a figure summary page here. I suggest we keep the discussion here in this issue, but can put the result of this discussion on that figure summary page, to keep a cleaner version and somewhere to have the figures in order. |
|
Sounds good. Thought it's easier to add figures in an issue. |
For c), trends for the period 2015-2100, or perhaps 2100-2080 mean minus 2015-2005 mean? |
|
You can add figures to the summary page just the same as issues, I've added an example one in now: This issue is good for discussion though, because we'll get email notifications and I'm guessing there will be lots of discussion to be had! |
|
Should we decide what journal we're aiming for as well? i.e. Are we aiming for 4 or 10 figures? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Yes agreed Adele - good call. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I'd vote for 10 I think. Unless we make 10 and decide that 4 tell the essential story, and then we can move the other 6 to Suppl. Info? |
|
I find it easier to write the long manuscript first to be sure the story is solid and complete. Then, could cut back to shorter GRL size if warranted/desired. |
|
I suggest we need figures that show (somewhat in this order):
|
|
I've been thinking a bit about this figure order. I think we have two possibilities:
I quite like the second option for this paper, accepting that it is a little unusual. Any thoughts? Also, I am not quite 100% convinced that we have fully disentangled the Ekman from the sea ice export hypothesis. Do we have a good experiment that could actually separate these two possibilities? That might be important for the storyline I am proposing... |
|
I like this suggestion Andy, but I would be tempted to show the SSH time series before the DSW plot. That way we could start off by saying that we might naively to expect the easterlies to pile up water on the shelf, and indeed we do see that initially, but it is quickly overwhelmed by a larger opposing response by the DSW. Then go into DSW mechanisms. I agree I don’t think we’ve distangled the mechanisms completely yet, let’s discuss today what analysis / simulations we need to do that properly. |
|
I think that’s a great idea Andy if the aim is to make the paper headline about the DSW response. But over the wider ocean there’s a largely coherent circumpolar (and counter-intuitive) response that is pretty impressive too, that remains when we pulled away the DSW formation region wind anomalies. To me that’s the headline story, and the DSW changes are kind of secondary or at least consequent on that. But that could just be me, DSW enthusiasts would be taken in by the storyline you propose. :-) |
|
Thanks for updating Fig 1 @julia-neme, looks good! Just a few minor things: Can you change the colorbar ticks (control) to a spacing of 1? Or maybe even 2 and for the anomaly 0.5 and then you can increase the font size for all the ticks and the other text. And maybe show a few less arrows, I find it looks slightly busy, but that might just be me. |
|
Also adding a short summary on what we discussed today (mostly for @StephenGriffies ): We continued our discussion about the paper outline, Adele and Andy updated the Figure_outline.md document accordingly. We have three hypotheses for different mechanisms that could explain the observed response: A local wind (katabatics) mechanism, B Upwelling mechanism, C Sea ice mechanism. We can rule out A with the additional perturbation experiment we did. The next steps are to do a bit more analysis/run additional simulations to disentangle B and C. Atm, we think C is more relevant. Adele is currently running two more simulations for the UP case: a "meridional winds only" and a "zonal winds only" case, where only one component is perturbed and the other is kept as in the control run. The idea is that it will change the curl, hence Ekman upwelling, but not so much the sea ice advection. |
|
Thanks @wghuneke great summary from today. 👍 |
|
PS: @julia-neme given that the wind experiments are simply +10% and -10% south of the purple line, the 2 x anomaly plots on the right are maybe not needed, and so instead you could use the full 'real estate' of the page width to devote to a single circumpolar wind vector plot....? I'm also curious how this looks without uniform vectors (which can be deceiving in the 'blank' low wind regions). e.g. if taking up the full page width and using a proper vector scale, we will maybe see clearly the full wind field and then knowing the expts are +/- 10% anomalies on this mean field could be sufficient? |
|
Yes agreed Matt, I think we could lose the 2 right panels. Julia, what do you think about using the model land/sea mask too, which cuts out some more of the Ross and Weddell? |
|
Yeah! Will update based on all these comments :) Thanks! |
Fig 1 updatedWith input from @adele157 and @matthew-england-unsw, how about this Fig. 1:
I've opted for streamlines since the quiver plots are a bit messy and difficult to interpret. The advantage of having the 3 panels is that a) makes it easier to understand the wind field, b) and c) allow to focus on the zonal/meridional components separately. |
|
I had a go at Figure 2: I'm not sure who wins the bet based on panel 2! Perhaps this is not the best way to measure bottom water transport? I'm currently working on trying to separate thermosteric from halosteric contributions (#44) to add to the top panel. |
|
Yep, I think we may need to look at DSW transport across the 1000m isobath instead! I guess the transport change just isn't making it that far north in this time. Is this 55S? |
|
OK, or maybe 2000m isobath? |
|
(Thanks Julia!!). Ummm.... the values look a bit strange? e.g. there's a strong semi-annual cycle from what I can tell? I count 8 cycles per 4 yrs. And that range from max to min within a year is min O(10 Sv) shooting up to O(30-40 Sv) max values? But not from summer to winter: it's 2 peaks per annum..... ? |
|
I started working on the bottom age plot (paper Fig 3) and created a list with items we need to agree upon:
|
|
Yeah, I was thinking that they would just be too similar, but perhaps we can do it this way (I think it is self-explanatory, but I can explain if you want). |
|
Thanks Andy. I think if it’s that similar it can also just be noted in the caption / ms text. |
|
Yes agreed, a comment like “sea ice processes are responsible for x% of the
change in freshwater flux” would be fine instead of showing on the plot.
Thanks for showing though Andy!
…On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 1:13 PM, Matthew England ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks Andy. I think if it’s that similar it can also just be noted in the
caption / ms text.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#37 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACA44U7BDPTGIB4M76QWF2DUKXOEZANCNFSM5DV6WWMA>
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
|
|
Yep, that works. I will calculate the percentage. |
|
First take at figure 8:
It becomes really clear how the increase in DSW comes from the meridional component of the wind!! |
|
Yeah, that's great! Does this have any smoothing applied to it yet? I would
argue for removing some of the seasonality on the DSW export lower plot.
…On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 at 08:57, Julia Neme ***@***.***> wrote:
First take at figure 8:
[image: figure-8-v1]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/51519847/140663299-a76fc84c-3c79-4a6d-93d7-307c4f898998.jpg>
It becomes really clear how the increase in DSW comes from the meridional
component of the wind!!
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#37 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACA44UYTQN227G4DC7ZRWMLUK3Y5XANCNFSM5DV6WWMA>
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
|
|
That one has got 6 month rolling mean, I could do either 12 or annual averages?? |
|
Yeah, maybe give them a try, see what it looks like? Alternatively, we could show anomalies for the DSW export (I know we had a discussion on this on Thursday, can't remember if we decided that was a good or bad idea? @AndyHoggANU?), then the seasonality could be removed by subtracting the control climatology. |
|
I think we had talk about showing the control as well? Anyways, here are the two options, 12 month running mean and anomalies from control:
|
|
I like the 12 month running mean. |
|
Same! :-) PS: interesting to see that the seasonal cycle in DSW anomalies in the WIND+zonal and WIND+meridional cases are ~6 months out of phase, and then approximately cancel out in the total WIND+ case. Could indicate places where zonal winds are cross-shelf I guess. But it's kinda curious that this would be seasonally opposite to the meridional case... ( a side issue of course) |
|
Yeah, I see the point, but maybe it is interesting to include the seasonal variation of DSW export -- partly because the meridional and zonal are out of sync!! ANyone else find that interesting? |
|
Haha yes I also saw that and thought it was interesting, see my comment above. :-) |
|
OK, if you look at the first draft of figure 8 (not plotted as an anomaly) you can see that what is happening here is that the control has a seasonal peak in summer; this peak is delayed in the zonal wind case and onset earlier in the meridional wind case. So, it might be interesting, but maybe it will be hard to explain succinctly ... so I am now leaning towards saying we should just focus on the 12-month running mean. |
|
Hi Folks, attempt at Fig 6 - calculation of Ekman pumping binned into surface density bins.
I separated the area integration into on shelf, and within perturbation zone off shelf to reveal upwelling in CDW off shelf. The WIND+x and WIND+y are the zonal and meridional wind components of WIND+. Clearly WIND+x dominates the upwelling/downwelling. It is difficult to isolate the upwelling of CDW using surface rho classes since the surface rho changes a lot seasonally and in spatially, as shown below. |
|
Pretty plots Paul! Is something wrong with the WIND+y lines? I'm thinking it should at least be similar to the control (i.e. there should still be upwelling over the open ocean, just no more upwelling perhaps than the control). Maybe a few north-south transects of temperature with these rho0 isopycnals overlaid would help in identifying on what isopycnal the warm CDW is located? |
|
Re: Is something wrong with the WIND+y lines? I'm thinking it should at least be similar to the control (i.e. there should still be upwelling over the open ocean, just no more upwelling perhaps than the control). WIND+y is just the dx_tauyf component of WIND+, not the meridional wind perturbation expt. So WIND+x + WIND+y =WIND+ |
|
Got it! Sorry! |
|
New go on Figure 3 with bottom age and salinity anomalies for WIND+ and WIND-. Figure shows the symmetry between the up and down case and introduces the changes in DSW formation. I plot the annual average of year 10 (2159), could change the salinity to an average over the last 5 years. (?) |
|
Question on Figure 9 on temperature changes: What depth levels and which experiments do we want to show? The temperature response is not really part of the mechanisms we discuss in the paper. The motivation to include a temperature plot was more to inform the community about what all of that means for the temperature and melting... Here is a go of bottom temperature for the WIND+ and WIND- cases only. Any suggestions? |
|
Looks good. Yeah, I reckon salinity averaged over the last 5 years is good. Perhaps could try enlarging both figures too (e.g. stretch vertical axis of Fig 3, and for Fig 9 put one underneath the other, so they're bigger?). |
|
Some updated Ekman/rho plots for the Amundsen, Denman and Wedell region are here: |
Very nice Wilma! I think surface and bottom temperature responses would be good to plot. Like you said, not because it's core to the mechanism, more for community interest. Not necessarily on same plot either; maybe we want T and S changes for both WIND+ and WIND- on same plot. So one Fig. for surface, one for bottom. |
|
Haha Matt, I was literally writing this at the same time. :) For the bottom temperature plot, how well can we explain these changes? The warming regions I think can be easily linked to the changing vertical heat fluxes associated with the change in the lower overturning cell. i.e. Increased winds -> enhancement of lower cell -> warming in upper ocean near and downstream of DSW production regions. For the cooling (i.e West Antarctica and much of eastern East Antarctica), I'm less sure of the mechanism. I think it may just be that the isopycnals are being pushed down against the coast. It would be interesting to see if this cooling is coming from the zonal, not meridional component of the change. If it is a heaving signal, do we want to show that by plotting a transect somewhere, or calculating the heave component of the temperature change? |
|
I prepared the temperature anomaly (at the surface and bottom) figure for WIND+ and WIND-:
|
|
Here is a revised Fig 8 that I have sent to Julia to review. Others might have comments. If yes, please post them here. Or comment in the pull request. Whatever ... |
|
Looks great Andy, thank you! I think we had decided to show 12 month rolling mean though? |
|
Oh yeah, you’re right. Well, the code is there now — I just didn’t have time to extend to the other 3 potential versions. Did you want to do that, or should I? |
|
Figure of sea ice velocity and thickness anomalies: Figure of sea ice transport (volume*velocity) and thickness anomalies: I think the velocity offers more clarity than the transport. |
|
Yes the transport’s pretty small
In the Ross. Thanks for checking! Looks like you got the velocities much
smoother too, nice!
…On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 6:15 PM, Paul Spence ***@***.***> wrote:
Sea Ice Figure of velocity and thickness anomalies:
[image: Screen Shot 2021-11-22 at 6 02 22 pm]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/6644956/142819009-47448e99-539c-4b49-98a8-ed655595cf80.png>
Sea Ice Figure of ice ice transport (volume*velocity) and thickness
anomalies:
[image: Screen Shot 2021-11-22 at 6 12 15 pm]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/6644956/142819127-5136a274-9a67-4df3-a4ec-792f83ab2f1b.png>
I think the velocity offers more clarity than the transport.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#37 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACA44U4QHE3AHUKCJ2VC533UNHUXZANCNFSM5DV6WWMA>
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
|
Suggested figures that go into paper. Add example figure, short description, suggestions for panels/what needs to be changed...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: