Storyboard

[wghuneke]

Suggested figures that go into paper. Add example figure, short description, suggestions for panels/what needs to be changed...

[wghuneke]

Figure 1: Experimental design (enhancing/relaxation of climatological wind field)
a) climatological wind field in JRA
b) historical trends in JRA and CMIP
c) projected trends in CMIP
d) applied perturbation

[adele-morrison]

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.

[wghuneke]

Sounds good. Thought it's easier to add figures in an issue.

[julia-neme]

Figure 1: Experimental design (enhancing/relaxation of climatological wind field)
a) climatological wind field in JRA
b) historical trends in JRA and CMIP
c) projected trends in CMIP
d) applied perturbation

For c), trends for the period 2015-2100, or perhaps 2100-2080 mean minus 2015-2005 mean?

[adele-morrison]

You can add figures to the summary page just the same as issues, I've added an example one in now:
https://github.com/adele157/easterlies-collaborative-project/blob/master/Figure_outline.md

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!

[adele-morrison]

Should we decide what journal we're aiming for as well? i.e. Are we aiming for 4 or 10 figures?

[adele-morrison]

I wonder if for the CMIP comparison, rather than focusing on the multi-model mean changes, we could perhaps focus on the scatter in the CMIP historical and future projections. ie. Make the argument that CMIP doesn't tell us much, because the models are all over the place and don't even reproduce the historical period well. So that's why we have chosen an idealised perturbation and simply amplified the existing wind pattern.

[matthew-england-unsw]

Yes agreed Adele - good call.

[julia-neme]

OK, how about then:
Figure 1
a), b) JRA55-do mean fields of uas and vas for 1958 - 2015
c), d) JRA55-do trends in uas and vas for 1958 - 2015
e), f) Boxplots of CMIP6 models trends in different regions, with JRA55-do as reference.

I suggest the boxplots are a nice way of showing the spread in trends and differences with JRA, since they are highly variable depending on location. Some regions are OK in CMIP6, some are really bad. I've uploaded the figure for you to see.

[matthew-england-unsw]

Lovely plot Julia!! :-)
So this is historical wind trends? What years?
I wonder about a final row showing (say) the multi-model mean wind anomalies [2081-2100] or trends [2000-2100] for CMIP6 (under the high emissions scenario)?
Biases in CMIP6 models comes out nicely here.
Love the circumpolar tendencies that can be clearly seen in the box plots as well.

[matthew-england-unsw]

Should we decide what journal we're aiming for as well? i.e. Are we aiming for 4 or 10 figures?

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?

[StephenGriffies]

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.

[wghuneke]

I suggest we need figures that show (somewhat in this order):

• two-time scale response (e.g. using SSH): quick Ekman response in first year, reversal of SSH signal within a couple of years (we think due to sea ice export increasing the sea ice/DSW formation)
• increase in DSW formation (e.g. bottom age, bottom temp/salt, map of surface water mass transformation rates)
• sea ice changes #10, increase in formation, increase in export

[AndyHoggANU]

I've been thinking a bit about this figure order. I think we have two possibilities:

1. Something linear, where we build up a picture gradually -- starting with temp and salt evolution, SSH response, sea ice evolution and export, and culminating in the DSW and off-shelf age changes. (Note that we may need a second set of figures showing different experiments to distinguish between hypotheses.)
2. Show the headline result first (well, as figure 3, assuming a CMIP 6 winds + model configuration figure). This, I think, would be the DSW change/age change figure. Then, go back to investigating other quantities to disentangle hypotheses.

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...

[adele-morrison]

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.