[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

CFC paper : Some more comments



Dear Jean-Claude

We have looked over the CFC-Draft and would like to thank you for your great work on the CFC Paper. We generally agree with previously sent comments, but nevertheless we would like to add some general comments:

1) We think that it is necessary to include some lines of model description of the 13 included models after the general introduction, as we don't have any common GOSAC model physic paper which could be referenced. At least the most important references from each of the involved models should be added to the paper. For the PIUB 2.5D-model we
could send you some short abstract describing the main features of the model and including the main references.

2) Furthermore it seems to be inevitable to include some physical diagnostics (as proposed by Mick Follow, comment 3) to get more detailed information about water masses in the models. Thus we would prefer the suggestion (ii) of
Mick, but we really don't know how much extra work this would create and therefore how realistic this solution
would be.

3) As Mick Follow proposes in his comment 1, it would be interesting to include more regionally based information in
the paper. To combine with his second comment, we propose to include a table (and discussion) with CFC-Inventories
and pCFC (to exclude the effect of solubility) (and/or CFC11/CFC12 ratios) for 3 meridional regions (NH - Tropics -
SH). Perhaps extend the table to include different depth layers of the ocean (Comment 2 Scott Doney)

4) The purpose of the CFC Simulations in  GOSAC should be stated more clearly. We should point out that CFC's are
used to investigate the model circulation and give some comments on how this can be justified (ocean surface close to
equilibrium with a well-known atmosphere, air-sea-gas exchange identical for all models....).

5) Is it really correct to conclude from figure 4 that the models simulate UNADW just from the depth of the formed
deep water tongue. What about the source regions of the NADW in the models? (see comment 2) by Jean-Michel Campin)

6) To the 'discussion' about PIUB figure 10: You should either cancel this PIUB figure or adapt the figure in a way to
get the right information, i.e increase resolution to display circular meridional boundaries.

Sorry for our delay in sending you our comments regarding the CFC-Draft.

Best Regards,

Fortunat and Kasper

-- 
**************************************

Kasper Plattner

Climate and Environmental Physics
Physics Institute, University of Bern
Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern

Tel. (+41) 31 631 44 61
Fax  (+41) 31 631 87 42
E-mail: plattner@climate.unibe.ch 

**************************************