Climatological distribution of ocean acidification indicators along the North American ocean margins

Jiang, Li-Qing; Boyer, Tim P.; Paver, Christopher R.; Yoo, Hyelim; Reagan, James R.; Alin, Simone R.; Barbero, Leticia; Carter, Brendan R.; Feely, Richard A.; Wanninkhof, Rik

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59

Preprints

04 Mar 2024

| 04 Mar 2024

Status: a revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal ESSD and is expected to appear here in due course.

Climatological distribution of ocean acidification indicators along the North American ocean margins

Li-Qing Jiang, Tim P. Boyer, Christopher R. Paver, Hyelim Yoo, James R. Reagan, Simone R. Alin, Leticia Barbero, Brendan R. Carter, Richard A. Feely, and Rik Wanninkhof

Abstract. Climatologies, which depict mean fields of oceanographic variables on a regular geographic grid, and atlases, which provide graphical depictions of specific areas, play pivotal roles in comprehending the societal vulnerabilities linked to ocean acidification (OA). This significance is particularly pronounced in coastal regions where most economic activities related to commercial and recreational fisheries as well as aquaculture industries occur. In this paper, we unveil a comprehensive data product featuring coastal climatologies and atlases for ten OA indicators, including fugacity of carbon dioxide, pH on the total scale, total hydrogen ion content, free hydrogen ion content, carbonate ion content, aragonite saturation state, calcite saturation state, Revelle Factor, total dissolved inorganic carbon content, and total alkalinity content. These indicators are provided on 1°×1° degree spatial grids at 14 standardized depth levels, ranging from the surface to a depth of 500 meters, along the North American ocean margins – defined as the region between the coastline and a distance of 200 nautical miles (∼370 km) offshore. The climatologies and atlases were developed using the World Ocean Atlas (WOA) gridding methods of the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), based on the recently released Coastal Ocean Data Analysis Product in North America (CODAP-NA), along with the 2021 update to the Global Ocean Data Analysis Project version 2 (GLODAPv2.2021) data product. The relevant variables were adjusted to the index year of 2010. The data product is available in NetCDF (DOI: 10.25921/g8pb-zy76) at the NOAA Ocean Carbon and Acidification Data System: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/ncei/ocads/metadata/0270962.html. It is recommended to use the objectively analyzed mean fields (with "_an" suffix) for each variable. The atlases can be accessed at: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/ocean-carbon-acidification-data-system/synthesis/nacoastal.html.

Received: 15 Feb 2024 – Discussion started: 04 Mar 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Li-Qing Jiang, Tim P. Boyer, Christopher R. Paver, Hyelim Yoo, James R. Reagan, Simone R. Alin, Leticia Barbero, Brendan R. Carter, Richard A. Feely, and Rik Wanninkhof

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on essd-2024-59', Abed El Rahman Hassoun, 16 Apr 2024

Jiang et al. have presented the climatological distribution of ocean acidification indicators along the North American ocean margins. The data are very interesting and useful for the community. Therefore, I would recommend the publication of this ms. after addressing a couple of comments.
Major comments:
P1, L45: You are mentioning that “coastal seas (< 200 meters deep near land)”. According to which definition/source are you relying?
There is only one figure in the manuscript, visualizing aragonite saturation state at 50 meters depth. I would suggest to add more figures showing the patterns of other parameters/indicators as well.
Minor comments:
It’s more conventional to refer to the following terms used in this ms., such as “inorganic carbon system variables” “carbonate chemistry variable” “carbonate chemistry”, as the carbonate system (parameters). Please change that throughout the ms.
Please unify the terminology used for the carbonate ions. Sometimes you use carbonate minerals or carbonate ion.
Abstract:
P1, L17-18: Economic activities are not restricted to fisheries and aquaculture. Thus, I suggest to change the sentence as follows: “This significance is particularly pronounced in coastal regions where most economic activities, such as commercial and recreational fisheries and aquaculture industries, occur.”
Introduction:
P2, L52-53: I suggest editing the sentence as follows: “…measurements of the carbonate system parameters, oxygen, and nutrients’ data…”.
P3, L70: Please replace “marine resource decision makers” by “decision-makers and stakeholders”.
Methodology:
Please check again the uniformity of citations in the ms. For example, in P5, L128, it should be (Reagan et al., 2023).

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', L.-Q. Jiang, 15 May 2024
  Response: Many thanks for your time in reviewing this manuscript and for the positive comments.
  Major comments:
  P1, L45: You are mentioning that “coastal seas (< 200 meters deep near land)”. According to which definition/source are you relying?
  Response: In this paper, we defined the ocean margins as “between the coastline and a distance of 200 nautical miles (∼370 km) offshore”.
  This definition is based on:
  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea, and
  
  The U.S. Presidential Proclamation No. 5030 of March 10, 1983: https://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/031483-proc_5030_48fr10605.pdf.
  
  There is only one figure in the manuscript, visualizing aragonite saturation state at 50 meters depth. I would suggest to add more figures showing the patterns of other parameters/indicators as well.
  Response: Another figure showing the distribution of Revelle Factor at 100 meters has been added. See Figure 2.
  Minor comments:
  It’s more conventional to refer to the following terms used in this ms., such as “inorganic carbon system variables” “carbonate chemistry variable” “carbonate chemistry”, as the carbonate system (parameters). Please change that throughout the ms.
  Response: All instances of “inorganic carbon system” and “carbonate chemistry”, have now been changed to “carbonate system”.
  Please unify the terminology used for the carbonate ions. Sometimes you use carbonate minerals or carbonate ion.
  Response: We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript. Although both carbonate minerals and carbonate ions were mentioned, they were used to denote distinct entities: carbonate minerals for CaCO3, whereas carbonate ions for CO32-.
  Abstract:
  P1, L17-18: Economic activities are not restricted to fisheries and aquaculture. Thus, I suggest to change the sentence as follows: “This significance is particularly pronounced in coastal regions where most economic activities, such as commercial and recreational fisheries and aquaculture industries, occur.”
  Response: The change has been made accordingly. See the new sentence on Line 17.
  Introduction:
  P2, L52-53: I suggest editing the sentence as follows: “…measurements of the carbonate system parameters, oxygen, and nutrients’ data…”.
  Response: The change has been made accordingly. See the new sentence on Line 53.
  P3, L70: Please replace “marine resource decision makers” by “decision-makers and stakeholders”.
  Response: Changes have been made accordingly. See Line 70.
  Methodology:
  Please check again the uniformity of citations in the ms. For example, in P5, L128, it should be (Reagan et al., 2023).
  Response: We have double checked all the citations to ensure they are in the same format.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on essd-2024-59', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Apr 2024
Summary
Jiang et al. provide a suite of standardized climatologies and atlases of the coastal North American margin for the year 2010, created from the CODAP-NA and GLODAPv2.2021 data products. These climatologies and atlases are well-described and easy to access and use. I would recommend publication of this paper after addressing the following comments.
Major comments
I have no major concerns with this paper and, in general, appreciate the brevity of it. However, there are two instances where I think the authors should expand the manuscript to add more information and discussion for the audience.
First, I recommend the authors add a few additional details about the spatial interpolation method to create a gridded field (circa lines 115-125). In particular, I was left with the following questions: How exactly were the “best-guess” estimates adjusted by the weighted means of the surrounding cells? Were the surrounding cells weighted by distance or some other factor? Was the radius of influence always the Rosby radius for the region? If not, what alternative was used and what criteria did the authors apply to determine the most appropriate radius?
Secondly, I think this paper would be strengthened with the addition of a few sentences or a paragraph discussing how the authors anticipate these static, annual climatologies indexed to 2010 to relate to current and sub-annual conditions. Are the spatial patterns of these climatologies assumed to be stable through time? Are these climatologies relatable to winter conditions, given that most cruises in CODAP-NA took place in the summer months? These considerations are particularly relevant with respect to the argument in line 70 that these climatologies and atlases will provide insight into the “current status of OA in each region.”
Minor comments
Line 47: Remove the comma after “biodiversity”.

Line 48: Remove the comma after “people”.

Line 49: I recommend breaking this into two sentences, ending the first after “activities.”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', L.-Q. Jiang, 15 May 2024
  Many thanks for your time in reviewing this manuscript and for the positive comments.
  Major comments
  I have no major concerns with this paper and, in general, appreciate the brevity of it. However, there are two instances where I think the authors should expand the manuscript to add more information and discussion for the audience.
  First, I recommend the authors add a few additional details about the spatial interpolation method to create a gridded field (circa lines 115-125). In particular, I was left with the following questions: How exactly were the “best-guess” estimates adjusted by the weighted means of the surrounding cells? Were the surrounding cells weighted by distance or some other factor? Was the radius of influence always the Rosby radius for the region? If not, what alternative was used and what criteria did the authors apply to determine the most appropriate radius?
  Response: Significant details have been added. See the 3 new paragraphs on Page 6.
  Secondly, I think this paper would be strengthened with the addition of a few sentences or a paragraph discussing how the authors anticipate these static, annual climatologies indexed to 2010 to relate to current and sub-annual conditions. Are the spatial patterns of these climatologies assumed to be stable through time? Are these climatologies relatable to winter conditions, given that most cruises in CODAP-NA took place in the summer months? These considerations are particularly relevant with respect to the argument in line 70 that these climatologies and atlases will provide insight into the “current status of OA in each region.”
  Response: Several sentences have been added. See Page 6.
  “While these climatologies offer extensive spatial and vertical coverage, they provide only a static view of OA conditions referenced to 2010. Insufficient observational data precluded the delineation of seasonal or sub-annual variations. Furthermore, the data used for generating these climatologies were primarily collected during the summer and fall seasons.”
  Minor comments
  Line 47: Remove the comma after “biodiversity”.
  
  Response: Done. See Line 47 for the updated sentence.
  Line 48: Remove the comma after “people”.
  
  Response: Done. See Line 48 for the updated sentence.
  Line 49: I recommend breaking this into two sentences, ending the first after “activities.”
  
  Response: Done. See Lines 46 - 51 for the updated sentences.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59-AC2
CC1:
'Comment on essd-2024-59', Su Kyong Yun, 22 Apr 2024

This data description paper introduces ocean acidification (OA) indicators, comprising climatologies and atlases, which serve as valuable resources for various stakeholders and researchers aiming to enhance their understanding of OA in North America. The indicators are effectively presented, with the table providing clear information on units and the description of the calculation method. The atlas clearly describes the regions covered by the data with the scale. A minor suggestion would be to include details in the variable table indicating whether the variables are measured or calculated, along with the methods used for their calculation. This addition would enhance users' understanding of the data. Additionally, specifying the datum used for standardized depth levels would add clarity. Overall, the paper demonstrates excellent organization and is written with meticulous attention to detail.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59-CC1
- AC3: 'Reply on CC1', L.-Q. Jiang, 15 May 2024
  
  Many thanks for your time in reviewing this manuscript and for the positive comments.
  A minor suggestion would be to include details in the variable table indicating whether the variables are measured or calculated, along with the methods used for their calculation. This addition would enhance users' understanding of the data.
  Response: We have added a new column to Table 1 to address this excellent comment.
  Additionally, specifying the datum used for standardized depth levels would add clarity.
  Response: Not sure if we fully understand this comment, but for each variable, it was used to generate their values in these standardized levels according to the sentence below:
  “Vertical interpolation was performed using the 4-point Reiniger-Ross interpolation approach when data permitted, otherwise a 3-point Lagrangian interpolation was used, with linear interpolation serving as a last resort (Reiniger and Ross, 1968).”
  Or if this is about the standardized depth levels themselves, we adopted them from the World Ocean Atlas.
  Overall, the paper demonstrates excellent organization and is written with meticulous attention to detail.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59-AC3

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on essd-2024-59', Abed El Rahman Hassoun, 16 Apr 2024

Jiang et al. have presented the climatological distribution of ocean acidification indicators along the North American ocean margins. The data are very interesting and useful for the community. Therefore, I would recommend the publication of this ms. after addressing a couple of comments.
Major comments:
P1, L45: You are mentioning that “coastal seas (< 200 meters deep near land)”. According to which definition/source are you relying?
There is only one figure in the manuscript, visualizing aragonite saturation state at 50 meters depth. I would suggest to add more figures showing the patterns of other parameters/indicators as well.
Minor comments:
It’s more conventional to refer to the following terms used in this ms., such as “inorganic carbon system variables” “carbonate chemistry variable” “carbonate chemistry”, as the carbonate system (parameters). Please change that throughout the ms.
Please unify the terminology used for the carbonate ions. Sometimes you use carbonate minerals or carbonate ion.
Abstract:
P1, L17-18: Economic activities are not restricted to fisheries and aquaculture. Thus, I suggest to change the sentence as follows: “This significance is particularly pronounced in coastal regions where most economic activities, such as commercial and recreational fisheries and aquaculture industries, occur.”
Introduction:
P2, L52-53: I suggest editing the sentence as follows: “…measurements of the carbonate system parameters, oxygen, and nutrients’ data…”.
P3, L70: Please replace “marine resource decision makers” by “decision-makers and stakeholders”.
Methodology:
Please check again the uniformity of citations in the ms. For example, in P5, L128, it should be (Reagan et al., 2023).

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', L.-Q. Jiang, 15 May 2024
  Response: Many thanks for your time in reviewing this manuscript and for the positive comments.
  Major comments:
  P1, L45: You are mentioning that “coastal seas (< 200 meters deep near land)”. According to which definition/source are you relying?
  Response: In this paper, we defined the ocean margins as “between the coastline and a distance of 200 nautical miles (∼370 km) offshore”.
  This definition is based on:
  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea, and
  
  The U.S. Presidential Proclamation No. 5030 of March 10, 1983: https://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/031483-proc_5030_48fr10605.pdf.
  
  There is only one figure in the manuscript, visualizing aragonite saturation state at 50 meters depth. I would suggest to add more figures showing the patterns of other parameters/indicators as well.
  Response: Another figure showing the distribution of Revelle Factor at 100 meters has been added. See Figure 2.
  Minor comments:
  It’s more conventional to refer to the following terms used in this ms., such as “inorganic carbon system variables” “carbonate chemistry variable” “carbonate chemistry”, as the carbonate system (parameters). Please change that throughout the ms.
  Response: All instances of “inorganic carbon system” and “carbonate chemistry”, have now been changed to “carbonate system”.
  Please unify the terminology used for the carbonate ions. Sometimes you use carbonate minerals or carbonate ion.
  Response: We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript. Although both carbonate minerals and carbonate ions were mentioned, they were used to denote distinct entities: carbonate minerals for CaCO3, whereas carbonate ions for CO32-.
  Abstract:
  P1, L17-18: Economic activities are not restricted to fisheries and aquaculture. Thus, I suggest to change the sentence as follows: “This significance is particularly pronounced in coastal regions where most economic activities, such as commercial and recreational fisheries and aquaculture industries, occur.”
  Response: The change has been made accordingly. See the new sentence on Line 17.
  Introduction:
  P2, L52-53: I suggest editing the sentence as follows: “…measurements of the carbonate system parameters, oxygen, and nutrients’ data…”.
  Response: The change has been made accordingly. See the new sentence on Line 53.
  P3, L70: Please replace “marine resource decision makers” by “decision-makers and stakeholders”.
  Response: Changes have been made accordingly. See Line 70.
  Methodology:
  Please check again the uniformity of citations in the ms. For example, in P5, L128, it should be (Reagan et al., 2023).
  Response: We have double checked all the citations to ensure they are in the same format.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on essd-2024-59', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Apr 2024
Summary
Jiang et al. provide a suite of standardized climatologies and atlases of the coastal North American margin for the year 2010, created from the CODAP-NA and GLODAPv2.2021 data products. These climatologies and atlases are well-described and easy to access and use. I would recommend publication of this paper after addressing the following comments.
Major comments
I have no major concerns with this paper and, in general, appreciate the brevity of it. However, there are two instances where I think the authors should expand the manuscript to add more information and discussion for the audience.
First, I recommend the authors add a few additional details about the spatial interpolation method to create a gridded field (circa lines 115-125). In particular, I was left with the following questions: How exactly were the “best-guess” estimates adjusted by the weighted means of the surrounding cells? Were the surrounding cells weighted by distance or some other factor? Was the radius of influence always the Rosby radius for the region? If not, what alternative was used and what criteria did the authors apply to determine the most appropriate radius?
Secondly, I think this paper would be strengthened with the addition of a few sentences or a paragraph discussing how the authors anticipate these static, annual climatologies indexed to 2010 to relate to current and sub-annual conditions. Are the spatial patterns of these climatologies assumed to be stable through time? Are these climatologies relatable to winter conditions, given that most cruises in CODAP-NA took place in the summer months? These considerations are particularly relevant with respect to the argument in line 70 that these climatologies and atlases will provide insight into the “current status of OA in each region.”
Minor comments
Line 47: Remove the comma after “biodiversity”.

Line 48: Remove the comma after “people”.

Line 49: I recommend breaking this into two sentences, ending the first after “activities.”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', L.-Q. Jiang, 15 May 2024
  Many thanks for your time in reviewing this manuscript and for the positive comments.
  Major comments
  I have no major concerns with this paper and, in general, appreciate the brevity of it. However, there are two instances where I think the authors should expand the manuscript to add more information and discussion for the audience.
  First, I recommend the authors add a few additional details about the spatial interpolation method to create a gridded field (circa lines 115-125). In particular, I was left with the following questions: How exactly were the “best-guess” estimates adjusted by the weighted means of the surrounding cells? Were the surrounding cells weighted by distance or some other factor? Was the radius of influence always the Rosby radius for the region? If not, what alternative was used and what criteria did the authors apply to determine the most appropriate radius?
  Response: Significant details have been added. See the 3 new paragraphs on Page 6.
  Secondly, I think this paper would be strengthened with the addition of a few sentences or a paragraph discussing how the authors anticipate these static, annual climatologies indexed to 2010 to relate to current and sub-annual conditions. Are the spatial patterns of these climatologies assumed to be stable through time? Are these climatologies relatable to winter conditions, given that most cruises in CODAP-NA took place in the summer months? These considerations are particularly relevant with respect to the argument in line 70 that these climatologies and atlases will provide insight into the “current status of OA in each region.”
  Response: Several sentences have been added. See Page 6.
  “While these climatologies offer extensive spatial and vertical coverage, they provide only a static view of OA conditions referenced to 2010. Insufficient observational data precluded the delineation of seasonal or sub-annual variations. Furthermore, the data used for generating these climatologies were primarily collected during the summer and fall seasons.”
  Minor comments
  Line 47: Remove the comma after “biodiversity”.
  
  Response: Done. See Line 47 for the updated sentence.
  Line 48: Remove the comma after “people”.
  
  Response: Done. See Line 48 for the updated sentence.
  Line 49: I recommend breaking this into two sentences, ending the first after “activities.”
  
  Response: Done. See Lines 46 - 51 for the updated sentences.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59-AC2
CC1:
'Comment on essd-2024-59', Su Kyong Yun, 22 Apr 2024

This data description paper introduces ocean acidification (OA) indicators, comprising climatologies and atlases, which serve as valuable resources for various stakeholders and researchers aiming to enhance their understanding of OA in North America. The indicators are effectively presented, with the table providing clear information on units and the description of the calculation method. The atlas clearly describes the regions covered by the data with the scale. A minor suggestion would be to include details in the variable table indicating whether the variables are measured or calculated, along with the methods used for their calculation. This addition would enhance users' understanding of the data. Additionally, specifying the datum used for standardized depth levels would add clarity. Overall, the paper demonstrates excellent organization and is written with meticulous attention to detail.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59-CC1
- AC3: 'Reply on CC1', L.-Q. Jiang, 15 May 2024
  
  Many thanks for your time in reviewing this manuscript and for the positive comments.
  A minor suggestion would be to include details in the variable table indicating whether the variables are measured or calculated, along with the methods used for their calculation. This addition would enhance users' understanding of the data.
  Response: We have added a new column to Table 1 to address this excellent comment.
  Additionally, specifying the datum used for standardized depth levels would add clarity.
  Response: Not sure if we fully understand this comment, but for each variable, it was used to generate their values in these standardized levels according to the sentence below:
  “Vertical interpolation was performed using the 4-point Reiniger-Ross interpolation approach when data permitted, otherwise a 3-point Lagrangian interpolation was used, with linear interpolation serving as a last resort (Reiniger and Ross, 1968).”
  Or if this is about the standardized depth levels themselves, we adopted them from the World Ocean Atlas.
  Overall, the paper demonstrates excellent organization and is written with meticulous attention to detail.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-59-AC3

Li-Qing Jiang, Tim P. Boyer, Christopher R. Paver, Hyelim Yoo, James R. Reagan, Simone R. Alin, Leticia Barbero, Brendan R. Carter, Richard A. Feely, and Rik Wanninkhof

Data sets

Climatological distribution of ocean acidification indicators from surface to 500 meters water depth on the North American ocean margins from 2003-12-06 to 2018-11-22 (NCEI Accession 0270962) Li-Qing Jiang, Tim P. Boyer, Christopher R. Paver, Hyelim Yoo, James R. Reagan, Simone R. Alin, Leticia Barbero, Brendan R. Carter, Richard A. Feely, and Rik Wanninkhof https://doi.org/10.25921/g8pb-zy76

Li-Qing Jiang, Tim P. Boyer, Christopher R. Paver, Hyelim Yoo, James R. Reagan, Simone R. Alin, Leticia Barbero, Brendan R. Carter, Richard A. Feely, and Rik Wanninkhof

Viewed

Total article views: 579 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
459	82	38	579	37	33

HTML: 459
PDF: 82
XML: 38
Total: 579
BibTeX: 37
EndNote: 33

Views and downloads (calculated since 04 Mar 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2024	206	36	12	254
Apr 2024	133	14	10	157
May 2024	72	20	14	106
Jun 2024	48	12	2	62

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 04 Mar 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2024	206	36	12	254
Apr 2024	133	14	10	157
May 2024	72	20	14	106
Jun 2024	48	12	2	62

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 591 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 591 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 29 Jun 2024

Short summary

In this paper, we unveil a comprehensive data product featuring ten coastal ocean acidification indicators. These indicators are provided on 1°×1° degree spatial grids at 14 standardized depth levels, ranging from the surface to a depth of 500 meters, along the North American ocean margins.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0