Zhang et al. poster

Subject:

Comments:
: Dongxiao, : This is an interesting setup for looking at other : people's work. I like the poster you present, though I must : say that I found parts of it difficult to understand either : because the text and/or figures were too small or too out of : focus to read, or just because it was hard to view some of the : comparisons simultaneously. I guess this is something which : we will all get practice in, as we create our posters for : internet viewing. : I haven't had a great deal of time to go through the : poster in detail, but since I have been asked, let me pose : a few questions and make a few comments and suggestions. : In the introduction you mention the fairly large range in : available estimates of heat flux across 24N, but note, that : if one tosses out the two oldest (Talley 84 and Hastenrath 80), : everybody else's solutions are consistent with yours to within : what we shall assume are 1 sigma standard deviation error bars. : I guess you could quibble about Trenberth and Solomon, but why : bother? I would venture to guess, but please correct me if I : am wrong, that this is because the indirect methods do include : some estimate of seasonal variations. And the direct methods : included some estimate in the error bar for the uncertainty : associated with the synopticity of a hydrographic section. : Also, note that in particular, your estimate is not only : consistent with mine, it is also consistent with Bryden et al. : That is, to within the uncertainties you cannot distinguish : them. : By the way have you seen any of the results of Alex Ganchaud's : global inverse model? His thesis has a nice discussion on the : errors for his model and uses the results of Stephen Jayne's : thesis to point out that much of the seasonal variation in : Ekman mass transport is compensated for by a depth independent : return flow with the adjustment taking place in an inertial : period. Therefore, as long as time mean winds are used, estimates : of mass and heat transport from hydrographic surveys will not : be affected by large wind-induced seasonal signals. : You might mention that your estimated eddy contribution to the : heat flux is even smaller than the estimate used by Bryden et : al. in determining their uncertainty. : You have used ETC in the "methods" section before writing it : out in the next section. I don't actually see it defined : anywhere. You really ought have both ETC and ERC labelled : on both versions of the geographic plots. : The tiny text in the method section is almost unreadable. I am : also confused about your use of Q_I. "Interior" as Harry : Bryden uses it, means the interior of the basin, so that : a term V_k <Theta_I> would never exist. What am I missing? : The curves in the volume and temperature transport plots : in the moored array section are not distinguishable. Did : this plot used to be in color? : Hydrography section: What does it mean: Levitus 1994 with : an enhanced hydrobase? (hydrobase is derived from levitus 1994). : Where is Keelung and Ishigaki? : Why does this temperature/volume transport relationship : exist between the Kuroshio and the Florida Current? : Why is a large amplitude seasonal cycle across 24N in the : Pacific surprising? : -0.07 PW with a fairly hefty error bar is hardly a nonintuitive : southward heat flux. Until fairly recently (1990) the sign : of the heat flux at this latitude was in question (see : Bryden et al). : There are probably other questions I could ask, but this : isn't meant to be a review. By the way - the seasonal cycle : broken into vertical and horizontal cells, and their : differences is an interesting result, and I'll need to : read over this last section of the poster more carefully : before I can make any comments. : Best regards, : Alison