<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">GMD</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Geoscientific Model Development</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">GMD</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Geosci. Model Dev.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1991-9603</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/gmd-14-1801-2021</article-id><title-group><article-title>Improved representation of river runoff in Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean Version 4 (ECCOv4) simulations: implementation,
evaluation, and<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> impacts to coastal plume regions</article-title><alt-title>Improved representation of ECCO river runoff</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Improved representation of ECCO river runoff}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{Y. Feng et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2 aff3">
          <name><surname>Feng</surname><given-names>Yang</given-names></name>
          <email>yfeng1982@126.com</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1948-8072</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Menemenlis</surname><given-names>Dimitris</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9940-8409</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Xue</surname><given-names>Huijie</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0738-4978</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Hong</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4 aff5">
          <name><surname>Carroll</surname><given-names>Dustin</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2 aff6">
          <name><surname>Du</surname><given-names>Yan</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7842-0801</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7">
          <name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>Hui</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3910-4662</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>State Key Laboratory of Tropical Oceanography, South China Sea Institute of Oceanology &amp; Institution of South China Sea Ecology and Environmental Engineering, Chinese Academy of Science, Guangzhou, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory, Guangzhou, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Guangdong Key Laboratory of Ocean Remote Sensing, South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, San José State University, Moss Landing, California, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>College of Marine Science, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>State Key Laboratory of Estuarine and Coastal Research, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Yang Feng (yfeng1982@126.com)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>1</day><month>April</month><year>2021</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>14</volume>
      <issue>3</issue>
      <fpage>1801</fpage><lpage>1819</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>24</day><month>September</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>27</day><month>October</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>13</day><month>February</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>21</day><month>February</month><year>2021</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2021 Yang Feng et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2021</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021.html">This article is available from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e181">In this study, we improve the representation of global river runoff in the
Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean Version 4 (ECCOv4)
framework, allowing for a more realistic treatment of coastal plume
dynamics. We use a suite of experiments to explore the sensitivity of
coastal plume regions to runoff forcing, model grid resolution, and grid
type. The results show that simulated sea surface salinity (SSS) is reduced
as the model grid resolution increases. Compared to Soil Moisture Active
Passive (SMAP) observations, simulated SSS is closest to SMAP when using
daily, point-source runoff (DPR) and the intermediate-resolution LLC270
grid. The Willmott skill score, which quantifies agreement between models and
SMAP, yields up to 0.92 for large rivers such as the Amazon. There was no
major difference in SSS for tropical and temperate coastal rivers when the
model grid type was changed from the ECCO v4 latitude–longitude–polar-cap grid to the ECCO2 cube–sphere grid. We also found that using DPR forcing and
increasing model resolution from the coarse-resolution LLC90 grid to the
intermediate-resolution LLC270 grid elevated the river plume area, volume,
stabilized the stratification and shoal the mixed layer depth (MLD).
Additionally, we find that the impacts of increasing model resolution from the intermediate-resolution LLC270 grid to the high-resolution LLC540 grid are
regionally dependent. The Mississippi River Plume is more sensitive than
other regions, possibly because the wider and shallower Texas–Louisiana
shelf drives a stronger baroclinic effect, as well as relatively weak
sub-grid vertical mixing and adjustment in this region. Since rivers deliver
large amounts of freshwater and anthropogenic materials to coastal regions,
improving the representation of river runoff in global, high-resolution
models will advance studies of coastal hypoxia, carbon cycling, and regional
weather and climate and will ultimately help to predict
land–ocean–atmospheric feedbacks seamlessly in the next generation of Earth
system models.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e193">Coastal plume regions represent a small fraction of Earth's surface and are an active component in global cycling of carbon and nutrients
(Bourgeois et al., 2016; Carroll et al., 2020;<?pagebreak page1802?> Fennel et al., 2019; Lacroix
et al., 2020; Landschützer et al., 2020; Roobaert et al., 2019). Recent
satellite-based observations with quasi-global coverage have been greatly
improved to monitor sea surface salinity (SSS), a key tracer for tracking
the river plumes. The European Space Agency (ESA) Soil Measure and Ocean
Salinity (SMOS; Mecklenburg et al., 2012) with 33 km–10 d space–time gridding and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Soil Moisture Active Passive
(SMAP) missions with 40 km–8 d space–time gridding are acquiring SSS
observations with sufficient resolution to track the plume pathways and
evaluate coastal plume dynamics (Fournier et al., 2016a, b, 2017a, b, 2019;
Gierach et al., 2013; Liao et al., 2020). To date, however, the coastal plume
regions have not been explicitly resolved in most global ocean general
circulation models (OGCMs), Earth system models (ESMs), and Global Ocean
Data Assimilation System (GODAS) products (Ward et al., 2020). As a result,
the plume region produced by OGCMs, ESMs, and GODAS are not consistent with
satellite observations. For example, Fournier et al. (2016a) found that the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> global circulation Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model
(HYCOM) did not accurately capture SSS during extreme flood events in the
northern Gulf of Mexico. Denamiel et al. (2013) found that the Congo River
nearshore SSS in global HYCOM was underestimated compared to other regional
simulations, even though the models had comparable horizontal grid
resolution. Santini and Caporaso (2018) suggested that most CMIP5 models
might lack skill in representing the Congo River Basin runoff and SSS in the
vicinity of river mouths. Most OGCMs, ESMs, and GODAS products usually had
large grid cells; a few cells may encompass the entire plume. As a result,
water delivered to the cells are fully mixed and diluted and therefore cannot
accommodate the complex dynamics. Additionally, riverine freshwater input to
the ocean is forced in the top model layer over a pre-determined surface
area in the vicinity of river mouths with climatological signal; thus the
system disturbance by extreme weather events, e.g., floods and droughts,
cannot been explicitly resolved (Griffies et al., 2005; Tseng et al., 2016).
Finally, virtual salt fluxes (VSFs) have been widely employed, where freshwater
affects salinity without a change in mass or volume flux (Bentsen et al., 2013;
Halliwell, 2004; Timmermann et al., 2009; Volodin et al., 2010). The above
model configurations may limit the representation of coastal plume regions in
global-scale <?xmltex \hack{\mbox\bgroup}?>models<?xmltex \hack{\egroup}?>.</p>
      <p id="d1e220">Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean (ECCO) is a data-assimilating model that uses observational data to make the best possible
estimates of ocean circulation and its role in climate. The model takes the
cube–sphere (ECCO2) to latitude–longitude–polar-cap (ECCOv4) grids for global
application. Like most OGCMs, ESMs, and GODAS products, the current ECCO
routes riverine freshwater from land directly to the ocean by taking observed
river runoff as seasonal climatology mass flux over the top of several
surface grid cells near the river mouths (Fekete et al., 2002; Stammer et
al., 2004). Recent ECCO efforts have been extended to address the global-ocean
estimates of pCO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and air–sea carbon exchange (Carroll et al., 2020), and
model resolution as fine as 1 km has been promoted globally to investigate
mesoscale-to-submesoscale dynamics in the open ocean (Su et al., 2018).
However, current ECCO lacks representation of coastal interfaces and
related feedbacks limiting their predictability to global climate change,
and this may further impede our ability to make informed resource management
decisions. In this study, we improve the representation of river runoff
in the ECCO and systematically evaluate model performance in reproducing SSS
within the vicinity of large tropical and temperate river mouths. We also
investigate the impact of runoff forcing, model grid resolution, and grid
type on coastal dynamics and critical physical properties near the plume
regions. The goal of this work is to provide a comprehensive sensitivity
analysis of runoff forcing in multiple simulations, which will aid in the
development of global ECCO that more robustly reflecting the
land–ocean aquatic continuum (LOAC).</p>
      <p id="d1e232">The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly introduces the ECCO
model and the various runoff forcing methods used in this study. Section 3
provides a comprehensive evaluation of model sensitivity to horizontal grid
resolution and river forcing. Section 4 discusses the sensitivity of plume
properties and coastal stratification. Results are summarized in Sect. 5.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>ECCO simulations and representation of river runoff</title>
      <p id="d1e250">In this study, we employ the Massachusetts Institute of Technology general
circulation model (MITgcm; Marshall et al., 1997) in a number of model
configurations that have been developed for the ECCO project (Menemenlis et
al., 2005; Forget et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2018). The ECCO MITgcm
configurations that we use herein solve the hydrostatic, Boussinesq
equations on either cube–sphere (CS; Adcroft et al., 2004) or
latitude–longitude–polar-cap (LLC; Forget et al., 2015) grids. The
cube–sphere configuration that we use is the so-called CS510 grid, which
was developed for the ECCO2 project (Menemenlis et al., 2008), consists of 6
faces with 510 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 510 dimension, and has quasi-homogeneous
horizontal grid spacing of 20 km. We also consider three different LLC grid
configurations: LLC90, LLC270, and LLC540, which have, respectively,
1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> nominal
horizontal grid spacing. The LLC grids are aligned with lines of latitude
and longitude between 70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S and 57<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and are locally
isotropic with grid spacing varying with latitude. In the tropics, the LLC
grid is refined in the meridional direction to better resolve zonal
currents. At high latitudes, the LLC grid is adapted to a two-dimensional
conforming mapping<?pagebreak page1803?> algorithm for spherical geometry. For our experiments, we
use LLC# horizontal grids, where the # is the number of points along
one-quarter of the Equator. Therefore, LLC90 means 360 grid points circle
the Equator. The model has 50 vertical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> levels; vertical resolution is 10 m
in the top 7 levels and telescopes to 450 m at depth. This setup was the
same for all designed experiments. We use a third-order, direct-space–time
(DST-3) advection scheme, while vertical advection uses an implicit
third-order upwind scheme. Vertical mixing is parameterized using the
Gaspar–Grégoris–Lefevre (GGL) mixing-layer turbulence closure and
convective adjustment scheme (Gaspar et al., 1990). Lateral eddy viscosity
in ECCOv4 is harmonic, with a coefficient of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.005</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the grid spacing in meters and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3600</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s. Depending on location,
the resulting eddy viscosity varies from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Additional sources of dissipation in
ECCOv4 are from harmonic vertical viscosity and quadratic bottom drag, along
with contributions from the vertical mixing parameterization. A detailed
description of ECCOv4 is provided in Forget et al. (2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e427">ECCOv4 uses natural boundary conditions for the surface freshwater fluxes
(Huang, 1993; Roullet and Madec, 2000), in which runoff is applied as a real
freshwater flux forcing, which allows for material exchanges through the
free surface and more precise tracer conservation compared to virtual salt
flux boundary conditions (Campin et al., 2008). The model uses <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
rescaled-height vertical coordinates (Adcroft and Campin, 2004) and the
vector-invariant form of the momentum equation (Adcroft et al., 2004). With
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> coordinates, variability in free surface height is distributed
vertically over all grid cells. For a water column that extends from the
bottom at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to the free surface at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
vertical coordinate is defined as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the rescaling factor. The Boussinesq,
depth-dependent equations for conservation of volume and salinity under the
vector-invariant form of the momentum equations are

                <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M27" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E1"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>1</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>2</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the surface freshwater flux (includes both precipitation minus
evaporation and river runoff), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the gradient
operator on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> plane. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the potential salinity, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are subgrid-scale vertical and horizontal iso-neutral mixing, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the horizontal and vertical residual mean
velocity fields. Our daily, point-source runoff (DPR) experiments added
freshwater to a single model grid cell in the first vertical model layer,
while the diffuse climatological runoff experiments added it over multiple
horizontal grid cells in the top layer. The amount of freshwater added to
each model grid cell decreased exponentially as a function of distance from
river outlets.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Sensitivity experiments</title>
      <p id="d1e833">We first run seven experiments, derived from the ECCOv4 setup, to test the
sensitivity of SSS in the vicinity of large river mouths to ECCOv4 model
grid resolution and runoff forcing (Table 1). The LLC90, LLC270, and LLC540
correspond to coarse (1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> – <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 km), intermediate
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> – <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 km), and high (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> – <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km) resolution from low latitudes to mid-latitudes. LLC90C and
LLC270C are forced by monthly climatological runoff from Fekete et al. (2002). The runoff has a spatial resolution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and has been linearly interpolated to each grid cell. Therefore, runoff may
be fluxed into a single grid cell in the coarse-resolution run and over
several grid cells in the high-resolution run. The twin experiments, LLC90R
and LLC270R, as well as the highest resolution run LLC540R, use the Japanese
55-year atmospheric reanalysis (JRA55-DO) river forcing dataset (Suzuki et
al., 2017; Tsujino et al., 2018). JRA55-DO includes daily river runoff
generated by running a global hydrodynamic model forced by adjusted
land-surface runoff. Compared to the Fekete ECCOv4 runoff, JRA55-DO runoff
has daily output; therefore, it can resolve interannual variability and
extreme floods and drought events. We add JRA55-DO runoff as point source
flux at a single grid cell adjacent to river outlets. For the intermediate-resolution LLC270 run, we did two additional experiments
LLC270R_spread and LLC270R_clim. The
LLC270R_spread used daily JRA55DO runoff, but over several
grids by allowing the model automatic interpolation onto model grids. The
LLC270C_clim used single grid cell point-source surface
forcing, but climatological runoff derived from 2015 to 2017. The additional
experiments were taken because the widely used climatological Fekete et al. (2002) runoff in ECCOv4 are different from JRA55DO taking the climatology. A
comparison between LLC90C vs. LLC270C or LLC90R vs. LLC270R vs. LLC540R shows
the resolution impact, while a comparison between LLC270R_spread and LLC270R shows the pure differences by adding runoff to a single
grid cell (point-source runoff) and multiple grid cell (diffusive runoff).
In addition to the LLC grid, two additional experiments are conducted on the
widely used cube–sphere ECCO2 grid to investigate model sensitivity to the
choice of grid topology (Table 1). CS510C is an ECCO2 run with monthly
climatological runoff from Stammer et al. (2004). The Stammer runoff is spread over
a pre-determined surface area in the vicinity of river mouths. The spreading
radius decreases exponentially with a 1000 km <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-folding distance. Spatial
fields of runoff forcing for ECCOv4, ECCO2, and JRA55-DO are shown in Fig. S1 in the Supplement.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e936">Summary of all experiments. The ECCOv4 and ECCO2
climatological runoff is derived from Fekete et al. (2002) and Stammer et al. (2004), respectively. A comparison of runoff forcings is shown in Fig. S1.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">No.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Experiment name</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Grid type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Runoff forcing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Grid spacing</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LLC90C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Lat–long–cap</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">ECCOv4 Climatology</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">55–110 km</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LLC90R</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Lat–long–cap</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">JRA55-do</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">55–110 km</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LLC270C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Lat–long–cap</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">ECCOv4 Climatology</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">18–36 km</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LLC270R</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Lat–long–cap</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">JRA55-do</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">18–36 km</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LLC270R_spread</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Lat–long–cap</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">JRA55-do</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">18–36 km</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LLC270R_clim</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Lat–long–cap</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">JRA55-do</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">18–36 km</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LLC540R</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Lat–long–cap</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">JRA55-do</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">9–18 km</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CS510C (Standard ECCO2)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Cube–sphere</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">ECCO2 Climatology</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 19 km</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CS510R</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Cube–sphere</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">JRA55-do</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 19 km</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1154">Each sensitivity experiment is integrated for 26 years (1992–2017), and we
analyze the final 3-year period (1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017). We
begin our analysis in January 2015 because the high-resolution SMAP
observations, which we use to evaluate model skill, are available<?pagebreak page1804?> from 1 April 2015. A total of 10 large rivers at 8 coastal regions spanning from low latitudes to
mid-latitudes are selected for detailed analysis; these include the Amazon
and Orinoco (AZ), Congo (CG), Changjiang (CJ), Ganges and Brahamptura (GB),
Mississippi (MR), Parana (PA), Mekong (MK), and Columbia (CO) rivers
(Fig. 1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1160">The 10 large rivers (red circles) at 8 coastal
regions (black boxes) used in our analysis: Amazon and Orinoco (South
America, noted as region 1), Congo (Africa, region 2), Changjiang (Asia,
region 3), Ganges and Brahamptura (Asia, region 4), Mississippi (North
America, region 5), Parana (South America, region 6), Mekong (Asia, region
7), Columbia (North America, region 8). Red circle size is scaled by the
climatological river discharge magnitude.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Target diagram and Willmott skill score</title>
      <p id="d1e1177">The first part of our study compares the simulated salinity with the
synchronized SMAP SSS observations from 1 April 2015 to 31 December 2017.
The level-3 SMAP version-3 SSS was produced by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(<uri>ftp://podaac-ftp.jpl.nasa.gov</uri>, last access: 29 March 2021; Yueh et al., 2013, 2014). We
also compare climatological SSS during this period with the World Ocean
Atlas 2018 (<uri>https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/woa18/</uri>, last access: 29 March 2021). For
quantitative comparison, we use the Willmott skill score (Willmott, 1981), a
widely used metric for quantifying agreement between models and
observations. The Willmott score is calculated as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M49" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">skill</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the model estimate at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the observation
at time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is the mean of the observations, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
number of time records for comparison. Specifically, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">skill</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> indicates
perfect agreement between model and observations; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">skill</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> indicates
that the model skill is equivalent to the observational mean.</p>
      <p id="d1e1381">Furthermore, we conduct our skill assessment for model SSS on multiple
experiments across several regions. We also use target diagrams (Jolliff et al., 2009) to efficiently visualize a suite of skill metrics. Target diagrams
are plotted in a Cartesian coordinate system with the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis representing
the unbiased root-mean-square deviation (RMSD); the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis represents the
bias, and the distance between the origin and any point within the Cartesian
space represents total RMSD.

                <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M60" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E4"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>4</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mtext>Bias</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E5"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>5</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mtext>Unbiased RMSD</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E6"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>6</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mtext>RMSD</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msqrt><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the mean of the model estimates. These three skill
assessment statistics are particularly useful as bias reports of the size
of the model–observation discrepancies. Bias values near zero indicate a
close match, though it can be misleading, as negative and positive
discrepancies can cancel each other. The unbiased RMSD removes the mean and
is a pure measure of how model variability differs from observational
variability. The total RMSD provides an overall<?pagebreak page1805?> skill metric, as it includes
components for assessing both the mean (bias) and the variability (unbiased
RMSD).</p>
      <p id="d1e1585">We normalize the bias, unbiased RMSD, and total RMSD by the observational
standard deviation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to allow for the display of multiple
experiment and regional SSS observations on a single target diagram.
According to the definition of unbiased RMSD, the value should always be
positive. However, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> region of the Cartesian coordinate
space may be utilized if the unbiased RMSD is multiplied by the sign of the
standard deviation difference <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><label>7</label><mml:math id="M65" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sign</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>o</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The resulting target diagram thus provides information about whether the
model standard deviation is larger (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) or smaller (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) than the observation's standard deviation, in addition to if
the model mean is larger (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) or smaller (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) than
the observation's mean.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Definition of plume characteristics</title>
      <p id="d1e1714">We investigate the role of grid resolution and runoff forcing using several
key metrics: plume area, volume, and freshwater thickness. The plume area is
defined as regions with SSS below a given salinity threshold <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (See
Sect. 4.2). The freshwater volume, relative to the reference salinity,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, is defined as the integral of the freshwater fraction:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><label>8</label><mml:math id="M72" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="-0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="-0.125em"/><mml:mspace width="-0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="-0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="-0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="-0.125em"/><mml:munder><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:munder><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where the volume integral is bounded by the isohaline <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Here, we
assume the maximum salinity in each selected region is the reference
salinity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The freshwater thickness <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">fw</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the
equivalent depth of freshwater and is computed as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E9" content-type="numbered"><label>9</label><mml:math id="M76" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">fw</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the depth-dependent diluted salinity due to the river
discharge, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the sea level, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the bottom depth.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Comparison with SMAP and WOA18</title>
      <p id="d1e1931">We first estimate how the various ECCOv4 LLC simulations (Table 1) compare
to observations in the vicinity of 10 large river mouths. The synchronized
SMAP SSS (1 April 2015 to 31 December 2017, 33-month) is used as the main
verification dataset (Yueh et al., 2013, 2014). SMAP SSS has been documented
to exhibit bias compared to observed SSS in shallow waters near river mouths
(Fournier et al., 2017a). Therefore, as an indication of absolute SSS, we
also compare the model simulations to the World Ocean Atlas 2018 (WOA18). We
note that there may be relatively few observations incorporated into the
objectively analyzed WOA18 product near the coast, which may over-smooth
salinity fronts. Additionally, WOA18 is a 55-year climatology from
1955–2010; therefore, we can only compare model climatology from
2015–2017. Overall, we use SMAP and WOA18 as “observational references”,
where our model–observation comparisons provide useful information on how
SSS changes between experiments rather than determine which experiment is
closer to the real world.</p>
      <p id="d1e1934">The upper 10 m SSS biases relative to SMAP, averaged over the 33-month
period, for CS510C (standard ECCO2) as well as the LLC540R (highest
resolution) are shown in Fig. S2. Both SMAP and WOA18 have <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> horizontal grid resolution; therefore, we interpolated all model fields to
this grid. For both simulations, negative biases are found from low latitudes to
mid-latitudes, while positive biases occur at high latitudes. When focusing
on large river mouth regions (e.g., AZ, PA, and CJ), the SSS bias is reduced
in LLC540R. This demonstrates that the choice of runoff forcing impacts
SSS at predominantly local scales; however, background currents can
transport the signal downstream or offshore to the open ocean (Liu et al.,
2009; Molleri et al., 2010).</p>
      <p id="d1e1957">Next, we compute mean model SSS near all selected river mouth regions, along
with SMAP and WOA18 (Table 2). The corresponding Willmott skill (WS) numbers
are listed in Table 3. We use the first empirical orthogonal function
(EOF) derived from WOA18 to determine river mouth regions, since WOA18
represents persistent low-salinity zones over the 30-year period. We remove
the mean SSS field before the EOF analysis. The first mode explains
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 47 %–67 % of the total variance. We then reconstruct the
dominant SSS anomaly field by multiplying the first PC with the spatial
pattern. Locations with salinity that is 1–2 PSU lower in the
reconstructed SSS field are taken as the river mouth region, and all eight
regions are shown in Fig. S3. We first found that SMAP SSS is lower than
WOA18 for large rivers. The underestimation is high over 5 PSU for the
Amazon region. The deviation between satellite products and in situ
observations is consistent with Fournier et al. (2016b, 2017a). Near the selected large river mouths, experiments with daily,
point-source runoff forcing generally have lower SSS than experiments forced
by climatological diffusive runoff (LLC90R vs. LLC90C; LLC270R vs. LLC270C;
CS510R vs. CS510C). Increasing model resolution generally results in regions
becoming fresher (Table 2; LLC90C to LLC270C; LLC90R to LLC270R to LLC540R).
With the intermediate resolution, the diffusive daily JRA55DO runoff forcing
LLC270R_spread had lower salinity than the climatological Fekete-driven
forcing run (LLC270C). This is not surprise, since the
Fekete river discharge file is more spatially spread than JRA55DO before the
model automatic interpolation (Fig. S1), which means less freshwater has
been input to the top of the river mouth region, resulting a
relatively high salinity. Meanwhile, with<?pagebreak page1806?> the daily JRA55DO forcing, the sea
surface salinity with the point-source forcing (LLC270R) was lower than that with the
diffusive forcing (LLC270R_spread). It is possible that
decreasing the number of cells adding the freshwater was equivalent to
decreasing the river mouth inlet width, which results in the inflow velocity
increasing and thus spreads the riverine water more widely.
In contrast, we found the point-source river forcing run using year-by-year
JRA55DO and climatological JRA55DO shows a lack of consistency in SSS change
compared to the above two cases.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1971">The SSS near river mouth for WOA18, SMAP, and all
experiments for the selected regions.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.89}[.89]?><oasis:tgroup cols="14">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="12" colname="col12" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="13" colname="col13" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="14" colname="col14" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Abb.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Discharge</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">WOA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">SMAP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">LLC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">LLC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">LLC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">LLC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">LLC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">LLC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">LLC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">CS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">CS</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">mouth</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>/yr)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">18</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">90C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">90R</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">270C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">270R_spread</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">270R</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">270R_clim</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">540R</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">510C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">510R</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Amazon/Orinoco</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">AZ</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6440</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">32.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">27.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">34.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">34.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">31.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">30.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">28.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">27.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">24.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">34.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">23.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Congo</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CG</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1270</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">33.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">33.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">34.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">34.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">34.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">35.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">33.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">35.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">33.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">34.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">34.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Changjiang</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CJ</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">907</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">32.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">31.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">33.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">32.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">33.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">32.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">32.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">32.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">31.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">32.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">30.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ganges/Brahamptura</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GB</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">643</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">29.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">27.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">30.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">29.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">29.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">27.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">27.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">27.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">23.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">29.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">25.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mississippi</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">552</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">33.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">34.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">35.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">34.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">35.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">34.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">34.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">33.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">33.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">35.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">34.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parana</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">PA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">517</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">28.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">27.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">33.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">31.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">31.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">24.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">24.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">25.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">20.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">33.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">20.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mekong</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MK</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">504</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">32.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">32.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">33.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">32.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">32.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">31.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">30.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">29.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">31.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">31.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">28.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Columbia</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CO</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">167</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">30.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">31.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">32.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">31.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">31.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">31.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">30.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">30.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">30.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col13">31.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col14">30.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e2493">A comparison with SMAP shows that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">skill</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scores become higher when
model resolution increases from 1 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (LLC90C vs. LLC270C, LLC90R vs. LLC270R), but lower when it increases further to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (e.g., LLC270R vs. LLC540R for Amazon, Ganges/Brahmaputra,
Parana). The higher or lower <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">skill</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> score is consistent with the SSS
decrease. At the AZ region, SSS from LLC270R is less than 1 PSU lower than
the SMAP average, while that from LLC540R is roughly 3 PSU lower. Therefore, LLC270R
receives a skill score of 0.92, higher than LLC540R (0.74). Although the SSS
reduction lowers the model score overall, we should note that SMAP only has
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution. This means it may not have the capability to
resolve those fine-scale dynamic feathers of the plume compared to high-resolution model simulation. In addition, SMAP may underestimate SSS near
the river mouth. Therefore, a larger discrepancy with SMAP in the high-resolution run does not indicate that the simulation deviates from the truth.</p>
      <p id="d1e2579">The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">skill</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scores when taking SMAP as the reference show that
LLC270R_spread is better than LLC270C for AZ, GB, MR, PA,
and CO. This is not surprising since the JRA55DO runoff had better temporal
resolution than Fekete runoff. Meanwhile, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">skill</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scores of
LLC270R_spread is worse than LLC270R, mainly because of
diffusive surface runoff bringing higher SSS than point-source surface
runoff (Fig. S8).</p>
      <p id="d1e2604">When taking the climatological WOA18 as the observational reference,
experiments forced with the climatological river forcing had a better
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">skill</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> score than with real-time forcing for the Amazon River, but
no such pattern for other rivers. The lack of consistency is possibly
because the simulations and data are not synchronized in years. A comparison
with the SMAP score shows that most ECCO SSS products had comparable skill with
SMAP, indicating that they are reliable to use at the climatological mean
level.</p>
      <p id="d1e2618">The higher or lower <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">skill</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> score is consistent with how much the model
deviates from the observational reference. At the AZ region, SSS from
LLC270R is less than 1 PSU lower than the SMAP average, while LLC540R is
roughly 3 PSU lower. Therefore, LLC270R receives a skill score 0.92, higher
than LLC540R (0.74). This also occurs with LLC270C and LLC270R when using
WOA18 as the reference.</p>
      <p id="d1e2632">For rivers in tropical and temperate zones, the CS510 grid has a resolution
comparable with the LLC540 grid; therefore, the SSS and skill scores are
comparable between CS510R and LLC540R. Since the model grid type has a
negligible impact on SSS for low-latitude to mid-latitude rivers, we next focus on
discussing model sensitivity to runoff forcing and model grid resolutions
only.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e2639">The Willmott skill score for each run as compared with
WOA18 and SMAP. The river mouth was recognized by the first EOF of WOA18
(see Figs. 5 and S1). Note that WOA18 data are a 30-year climatology
(1981–2010) and not in the same period as SMAP and experiments.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.88}[.88]?><oasis:tgroup cols="11">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SMAP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">LLC90C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">LLC90R</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">LLC270C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">LLC270R_spread</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">LLC270R</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">LLC270R_clim</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">LLC540R</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">CS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">CS</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">mouth</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">510C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">510R</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col11">with SMAP </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Amazon/Orinoco</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.71</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.73</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Congo</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.89</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.87</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Changjiang</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.59</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.51</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.59</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.85</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ganges/Brahamptura</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.61</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.71</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.84</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.70</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mississippi</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.55</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.77</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.49</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.72</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parana</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.37</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.51</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.40</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.37</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.40</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mekong</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.77</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.63</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.74</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.38</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Columbia</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.49</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.70</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.74</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.27</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.61</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col11">with WOA </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Amazon/Orinoco</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.87</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.44</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Congo</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.70</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.48</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.94</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.95</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.92</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Changjiang</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.82</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.94</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.70</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.70</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.72</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.54</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ganges/Brahamptura</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.72</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.77</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.82</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.51</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.59</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mississippi</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.59</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.76</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.49</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.66</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parana</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.87</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.40</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.42</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.42</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.42</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.40</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.29</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mekong</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.84</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.87</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.39</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.59</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.71</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.30</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Columbia</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.51</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.63</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.87</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.82</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.84</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.51</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.90</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e3345">To better compare the sensitivity of SSS to river forcing, we provide
zoomed-in plots of the same comparison shown in Fig. 1 for AZ, MR, and CO
Rivers for all LLC simulations, representing large, medium, and small rivers
(Figs. 2 and S8). The positive bias is greatly reduced when applying
daily, point-source river forcing, as well as increasing the horizontal grid
resolution.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e3350">Zoomed-in view of SSS difference between model
experiments and SMAP observations for large (Amazon, <bold>a–d</bold>), medium
(Mississippi, <bold>e–h</bold>), and small (Columbia, <bold>i–l</bold>) rivers.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e3368">Time series for all LLC simulations and SMAP, at these three river mouths,
are shown in Fig. 3. As in Fig. 2, the bias decreases when
daily, point-source river forcing is used and as the horizontal grid
resolution increases. Additionally, We found the 2017 spring Amazon flood
can be clearly seen when forced by diffusive daily JRA55DO
(LLC270R_spread), but not in the diffusive climatological
Fekete case (LLC270C). The Mississippi River mouth region is different from
the Amazon in that the annual cycle of LLC270_spread is stronger
than LLC270C. This is because the seasonality of the Mississippi–Atchafalaya
river has been oversmoothed in the climatological Fekete. The Columbia river
region is consistent with the Amazon in that there is an abnormal low salinity
in 2017 in LLC270R_spread and LLC270R, which is because the
peak discharge is successfully resolved by JRA55DO.</p>
      <p id="d1e3371">It is interesting to see the intermediate LLC270 resolution run is better
than the high CS510 resolution run at the Amazon region. This is because the
Stammer et al. (2004) runoff is smoother spatially and lacks seasonal
variability compared to the Fekete et al. (2002) runoff in this region
(Fig. S7). When using DPR forcing, the SSS differences associated with the
river discharge interannual variability can be resolved as well. For
example, the 2017 abnormally low SSS near the Amazon river mouth is
associated with an extreme flooding event (Barichivich et al., 2018).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e3377">Areally averaged SSS in the Amazon, Mississippi,
and Columbia river mouth regions (see Fig. S3) with climatological
diffusive and daily, point-source runoff forcing for SMAP (thick gray line)
and experiments (thin colored lines) with varying horizontal grid
resolution. The method used to characterize the river mouth region is
described in Sect. 3.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=384.112205pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021-f03.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e3386">Next, we quantify the difference in mean and variance between the SSS time
series of LLC simulations and that of SMAP under daily JRA55DO runoff but using diffusive and point source methods for each  (Fig. 4). We found the normalized bias with point source is lower than experiments with
diffusive source. The normalized unbiased RMSD decrease is ignorable
compared to the normalized bias decrease. This means the total normalized
RMSD improvements are primarily due to the normalized bias decrease. We find
that most unbiased RMSD remains negative when varying the runoff forcing
from climatological to daily. This implies that the variance of LLC
simulations remains lower than SMAP observations as the runoff forcing
changes. The only exception is the Congo river, which is a near-Equator
eastern boundary plume that freshwater transport may distinguish from
others (Palma and Matano, 2017).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e3391">SSS target diagram near the selected river mouths (see
Fig. S3) for LLC270R_spread and LLC270R simulations.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021-f04.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?pagebreak page1807?><p id="d1e3400">We also examine the bias and variance on the target diagram for experiments
with varying grid resolution but similar daily runoff forcing
(Fig. 5). Our results show that the normalized bias decreases as
the model resolution increases, which is consistent with the SSS reduction in
Table 2 and relatively low <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">skill</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Table 3. The unbiased RMSD
decreases slightly with the sign remaining negative as the model resolution
increases. This occurs everywhere, except for the two largest rivers (AZ and
CG) where the sign becomes positive for LLC540R, indicating that the model
variance exceeds the SMAP variance when using the high-resolution grid. In
summary, the comparison with synchronized SMAP shows that using daily runoff
and finer horizontal grid resolution improves the representation of SSS
variability but at a cost of increased SSS bias.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Impact on river plume properties</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>EOF analysis of SSS</title>
      <p id="d1e3429">We next investigate how model runoff improvements impact river plume
properties such as plume area, volume, and freshwater thickness, since we are
interested in how the widely used general ECCOv4 (forced by Fekete runoff))
will be different from the new DPR implementation. We limited our next
discussion to LLC#C/R cases only (experiments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7). We first
evaluate the plume SSS signature and dynamics through EOFs; the mean is
removed before the EOF analysis. The first and second mode of AZ, MR, and CO
using the same grid resolution but different runoff forcing is shown in
Figs. 6 and S4. The spatial pattern reveals the salinity anomaly caused by
the runoff, while the PC time series shows the timing. A single value in
spatial pattern or PC time series does not have a clear physical meaning, but
together they reveal how much salinity deviates from the mean.<?pagebreak page1808?> The PC
time series for experiments with DPR forcing clearly shows similar seasonal
cycles, albeit with larger amplitudes and interannual variability.</p>
      <p id="d1e3432">For the AZ region, the LLC270R and LLC270C spatial patterns are similar for
the first and second mode. The first mode accounts for 59 % (72 %) of
the total variance in LLC270R (LLC270C). The spatial pattern reveals the
presence of a low-salinity tongue; this is located in a narrow band along
the northeastern South American coast from February–June, which is
associated with the large river discharge and the northward-flowing Brazil
Current. The second mode of LLC270R (LLC270C) accounts for 33 % (23 %)
of the total<?pagebreak page1809?> variance. The spatial pattern shows that the plume-like
features extend northwestward to the Caribbean Sea and Central Equatorial
Atlantic Ocean from May–September. This pattern is driven by Ekman currents
associated with northeasterly wind stress, and the transport to the Central
Equator is due to the North Equatorial Counter Current (NECC; Lentz
1995a, b).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e3437">Same as Fig. 4, but for LLC90R, LLC270R, and LLC540R.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e3449">First and second EOF spatial patterns from the
LLC270C and LLC270R simulations for the Amazon, Mississippi, and Columbia
rivers. The corresponding PC time series are normalized by the standard
deviation and multiplied back to the spatial mode.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3458">For the MR region, the first and second mode of LLC270R (LLC270C) explains
53 % (66 %) and 29 % (18 %) of the total variance, respectively. The
spatial pattern of the first mode is generally similar. There is a
bulge-like plume feature that occupies a region near the MR mouth with a
southeast extension to the central Gulf of Mexico from May–October (Fig. S4), while the freshwater signal in the vicinity of the southeast MR mouth
is stronger in LLC270R. The extension of low-salinity waters is due to the
upwelling of favorable winds (southwesterly) from late spring to summer, which
transport the MR freshwater offshore (Walker, 1996).</p>
      <p id="d1e3461">The first and second mode explains 63 % (56 %) and 29 % (33 %) of
the variability at the CO region in LLC270C (LLC270R), respectively. It has
been previously recognized that the CO plume exhibits seasonal variability
forced by wind and freshwater discharge (García Berdeal et al., 2002). During
winter, Ekman transport resulting from the northward winds constrains the
plume against the Washington coast. Downwelling-favorable wind stresses
strengthen the anti-cyclonic rotation of the river plume, resulting in a
coastally attached winter plume. In contrast, prevailing southward wind
stress results in offshore Ekman transport; this advects the plume offshore,
where it is influenced by the California Current over long timescales and
subsequently veers southward and offshore (Banas et al., 2009). This
seasonal pattern is shown in the first LLC270R mode and second LLC270C mode.</p>
      <p id="d1e3464">The first and second EOF modes for AZ, MR, and CO with daily runoff forcing
in coarse (LLC90R) and fine (LLC540R) grid resolution are shown in Figs. 7
and S5. The plume-like features and associated dynamics are similar to
LLC270 in both runs. Additionally, the higher-resolution LLC540R resolves
fine-scale plume structure for a number of major rivers, which was
previously revealed by satellite observations, regional simulations, or
neural network methods (e.g., meanders and rings of the AZ plume due to the
NBC retroflection; Molleri et al., 2010); “horseshoe” patterns of the MR
plume associated with Texas floods (Fournier et al., 2016b); and the
bidirectional CO plume during variable summer wind patterns (Liu et al., 2009). Overall, EOF SSS analysis shows that general plume pattern and
dynamics are grid independent; however, fine-scale plume structures are only
resolved by high-resolution simulations.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page1810?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Plume area, volume, and freshwater thickness</title>
      <p id="d1e3476">We first calculated the plume area using a salinity threshold from 28 to 36 PSU. The 3-year-average plume area for AZ, MR, and CO river region for
different LLC configurations are present in Fig. 8. Under either the
climatological diffusive or DPR river forcing, we could clearly see the
plume area increase when model resolution increased from 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for all regions. However, when model resolution was increased to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, the plume area further increase can only be clearly seen in the Mississippi River region. To highlight the seasonal and
interannual variability at the given threshold, we also show the plume
area and volume within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> PSU under the climatological and daily
runoff forcing at the coarse, intermediate, and high-resolution runs (Figs. S6, 9). Figure 9 presents a time series of freshwater volume within the
given salinity during this period. There is a stronger interannual
variability when using DPR, along with larger plume area and volume during
flood years. The MR and CO plume area and volume cannot be explicitly resolved
at the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> threshold when using the climatological and runoff
forcing since river runoff has been distributed over broad spatial grids
and surface salinity decrease is small. For the AZ region, the averaged
plume area (volume) approaches 6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in LLC270C, whereas it is only about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in LLC90C. In contrast,
the MR and CO plume area (volume) is easily recognized when using DPR
forcing. The AZ plume increases as the grid resolution increases, reaching
10, 13, and 17 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in LLC90R, LLC270R, and LLC540R,
respectively. The freshwater volume in coarse-, intermediate-, and
high-resolution runs is comparable, with values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The plume area and volume in the MR region is
more sensitive to the model grid resolution than AZ and CO. The LLC540R
plume area is<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3–4 times higher than LLC270R, while LLC270R
is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6–7 times higher than LLC90R. For the CO region, the
plume area when using DPR forcing is similar between intermediate- and
fine-resolution experiments, with the area in LLC270R and LLC540R increasing
to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> during the 2015 flood
year. In contrast, LLC540R maintains a larger plume volume than the
intermediate-resolution run.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e3765">Same as Fig. 6 but for the LLC90R and LLC540R
simulations. The corresponding PC time series are normalized by the standard
deviation and multiplied back to the spatial mode shown in Fig. S5.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e3776">2015–2017 averaged plume area at salinity threshold
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from 28 to 36 for the Amazon, Mississippi, and Columbia River
regions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e3799">Freshwater volume within 30 PSU for the Amazon,
Mississippi, and Columbia river regions for various experiments; reference
salinity is 36 PSU.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3808">The sensitivity of plume area and volume to runoff forcing and grid
resolution reflects the experiment's ability to resolve the horizontal
advection and downward mixing of riverine freshwater. This can be partially
reflected in the freshwater thickness calculation, which is shown in Fig. 10. For the intermediate-resolution experiments, the maximum freshwater
thickness <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">fw</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is over 10, 5, and 4 m near the AZ, MR, and CO
river mouths when using DPR, as opposed to 4, 2, and 2 m when using
climatological runoff. Additionally, the freshwater thickness in experiments
with DPR but different grid resolutions (LLC270R and LLC540R) demonstrates
that a coherent plume rotates and responds to external wind and background
flows; this coastal plume structure is largely absent in the coarser LLC90R.
The coarse-resolution experiment exhibits a more diffuse response, with low
salinity near MR and CO river mouths. Note that the runoff forcing is
identical between LLC90R, LLC270R, and LLC540R experiments, and differences
in plume area, volume, and freshwater thickness are due to model resolution
alone. The freshwater flux in the higher resolution experiments can result
in larger inflow velocities, a stronger baroclinic response, and
consequently a more vigorous coastal plume. The plume area and volume in the MR region is more sensitive to grid resolution – this possibly results from
the representation of shelf bathymetry. The Texas–Louisiana shelf is wider
and shoals more gradually from the coastline compared to the northern
Brazilian shelf (AZ) and Washington shelf (CO). When adding the same amount
of freshwater in shallow water regions, high-resolution experiments generate
a larger pressure gradient force than the intermediate resolution, which
drive a stronger baroclinic effect and elevate coastal currents. The
alongshore currents can advect the MR Plume water downcoast, enlarging the
plume area. Besides, the plume waters may be entrained downward by strong
sub-grid vertical mixing and adjustment, e.g., meso-scale eddies, when
flowing offshore to the open ocean as<?pagebreak page1812?> the horizontal resolution increases
from intermediate to high. The eddies in the high-resolution run at AZ and CR
may break up the plumes, shrinking the area compared to the low-to-intermediate-resolution run (Fig. S6).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e3824">Freshwater thickness for the Amazon, Mississippi, and
Columbia river regions in LLC90R, LLC270C, LLC270R, and LLC540R experiments.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Impact on ocean properties associated with SSS</title>
      <p id="d1e3841">In this section, we examine the sensitivity of stratification and mixed
layer depth (MLD) between different experiments. Figure 11 shows 3-year
averaged vertical profiles of salinity, temperature, and vertical density
gradient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the potential density) near the
AZ (a–c), MR (d–f), and CO (g–i) river mouths, respectively. The
profiles are averaged over the horizontal regions shown in Fig. S3. The
vertical density gradient is an important indicator of stratification
strength. The salinity differences between climatological (LLC90/270C) and
DPR forcing (LLC90/270R) are large near the surface and diminish with
increasing depth. The temperature difference when using the two types of
runoff forcing is insignificant, demonstrating that the stratification is
primarily determined by salinity and the addition of freshwater.
Additionally, DPR forcing greatly increases subsurface stratification, which
implies a decrease in vertical mixing.</p>
      <p id="d1e3867">Figure 11 also shows sensitivity of upper-ocean stratification to various
model grid resolutions. The profiles show a significant decrease in salinity
from the surface to 50 m depth as the resolution increases, which impacts
the stratification (panels c, f, and i). We note that the vertical density
gradient has a subsurface maximum in the coarse- and intermediate-resolution
run, while the high-resolution experiment has a surface maximum due to
low-salinity water concentrated in the surface level. SST is highest in
LL540R at AZ and MR, reflecting that heat is preserved at the surface due to
the increase in subsurface stratification.</p>
      <p id="d1e3870">The sensitivity of stratification in the above analysis implies that the MLD
can be altered by river forcing and grid resolution. We compare the MLD in
the vicinity of AZ, MR, and CO during the simulation period in Fig. 12.
The MLD in our calculation uses the threshold method, in which deeper levels
are examined until one is found with density differing from that the near surface
by more than 0.03 kg/m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (de Boyer Montégut et al., 2004). This
reflects the maximum depth of the boundary layer that is sustained by
riverine freshwater. Interestingly, all experiments simulate the annual
cycle of MLD. There was relatively shallow MLD from April to December, which
corresponds to periods of high river discharge. The MLD in the DPR forcing
and high-resolution scenario is shallower than the climatological,
low-resolution scenario, which is consistent with vertical salinity and
stratification profiles shown in Fig. 11.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e3885">Mean 3-year (2015–2017) salinity, potential temperature,
and vertical density gradient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) profiles.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e3912">2015–2017 daily MLD, averaged in the vicinity of the
Amazon River <bold>(a, b, c)</bold>, Mississippi River <bold>(d, e, f)</bold>, and Columbia
River <bold>(g, h, i)</bold> mouth. MLD is computed based on de Boyer Montegut et
al. (2004).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=441.017717pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1801/2021/gmd-14-1801-2021-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Discussion and conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e3940">In this study, we investigate the model sensitivity of runoff forcing and
grid resolution and type under the ECCO framework. We find that DPR greatly
improves model representation of global rivers, with horizontal model
resolution having a substantial control on SSS in the vicinity of river
mouths. We observe no major changes in tropical and temperate river mouth
SSS when using cube–sphere or LLC grid types when using the same river
forcing. A comparison with synchronized SMAP observations shows that the use
of DPR forcing and intermediate grid resolution can increase the model
performance in simulating SSS in the vicinity of river mouths. However,
further increasing model grid resolution from<?pagebreak page1813?> intermediate to high may
result in an additional SSS bias towards fresher values.</p>
      <p id="d1e3943">Previous theoretical modeling studies have demonstrated that, in the
absence of external forcing, large river plumes influenced by rotational
effects tend to veer anticyclonically and form a bulge region near the river
mouth as well as an along-shore downstream coastal current as Kelvin waves
(Kourafalou et al., 1996; Yankovsky and Chapman, 1997). Additionally,
idealized numerical simulations have revealed that river plume behavior is
greatly impacted by external forcing. Chao (1988a, b) demonstrated that
vertical mixing, bottom drag, and bottom slope greatly impact the spin-up,
maintenance, and dissipation of river plumes. Fong and Geyer (2001) revealed
that a surface-trapped river plume would thin and be advected offshore by
cross-shore Ekman transport. Fong and Geyer (2002) suggested that the
ambient current, which is in the same direction as the geostrophic coastal
current, can augment plume transport. Our ECCO experiments are examining the
above river plume dynamic theory globally with realistic topography and
external atmospheric forcing. Our EOF analysis of SSS at the AZ, MR, and CO
shelves show that the general spatial and temporal patterns plume related to
river discharge, wind, and currents are independent of the grid resolutions
and forcing formulations examined in this study, which are quite consistent
with those previous studies. However, higher resolution and DPR forcing may
be particularly important for resolving the fine-scale plume dynamics for
small rivers. Using DPR forcing and increasing the model grid resolution
from coarse to intermediate increases the river plume area and volume, while
further increasing the model resolution from intermediate to high has mostly
regional effects. Shallow and wide shelf regions, such as the Mississippi
Delta, are more sensitive compared to AZ and CO. Nowadays, the increased
computational power allows GODAS products such as ECCO to provide data at
different resolutions, which supports regional scientific studies using a data
analytical approach or offline method (e.g., the Lagrangian method; Meng et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2019). Our results suggest that how high-resolution
products should be used depending on the spatiotemporal dynamics
as well as geomorphology characteristic of the studied region itself.</p>
      <p id="d1e3946">We also found that using DPR forcing and increasing the model grid
resolution can stabilize the water column at the subsurface and shoal the MLD.
This may have significant implications for biogeochemical cycles and air–sea
exchange in coastal zones. From the biogeochemistry perspective, freshwater
introduced by the river increase shelf stratification, preventing the
reoxygenation of bottom waters and thus may generate large hypoxic regions
(Fennel et al., 2013; Feng et al., 2019). From the air–sea interaction
perspective, on one hand, SST can trigger deep atmospheric convection and
strong rainfall. On the other hand, strong near-surface stratification may
inhibit cooling and intensify tropical cyclones (Cione and Uhlhorn, 2003;
Neetu et al., 2012; Rao and Sivakumar, 2003; Sengupta et al., 2008; Vialard
and Delecluse, 1998; Vinaychandran et al., 2002).<?pagebreak page1814?> We envision that
future work investigating river impacts on ocean–atmosphere and Earth
system dynamics could be accomplished by coupling our improved ECCO
simulations with an atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM).</p>
      <p id="d1e3949">In the state-of-the-art OGCMs, ESMs, and most GODAS products, river runoff is
incorporated into coarse-resolution grids as augmented precipitation.
Climatological runoff forcing is often used in conjunction with artificial
spreading, along with a virtual salt flux scheme. Tseng et al. (2016)
examined model sensitivity to the spreading radius, turbulent mixing
parameterization, reference salinity, and vertical distribution of riverine
freshwater on 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution in the Community Earth System Model
(CESM). For all factors examined, they found that the model results are most
sensitive to the spreading radius, which substantiates the importance of our
finding that the associated plume properties, including the area and hence the
SSS near river mouths, exhibit strong responses when switching the runoff
flux from diffusive climatological to daily point source.</p>
      <p id="d1e3962"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The present state-of-the-art regional-scale estuarine models can simulate
estuarine hydrodynamics and biogeochemical processes in a robust manner. The
inlet approach, which defines a rectangular breach in coastal land cells
with uniform density and discharge, is widely used (Herzfeld, 2015; Garvine,
2001). An additional barotropic pressure term may be added to account for
pressure gradients induced by the freshwater plume (Schiller and Kourafalou,
2011). The inlet approach has also been used in global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-coordinate models
by injecting freshwater in multiple vertical grid cells (Griffies et al., 2005). In our simulations, changes in sea level are redistributed over all
vertical grid cells by the rescaled height vertical coordinate. This is
similar to the inlet approach in the regional models, which add a mass or
volume flux of freshwater to a breach in coastal land cells (Garvine, 1999).
Herzfeld (2015) investigated the role of model resolution on plume response
at the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) using the Regional Ocean Modeling System
(ROMS). The study found that the plume veered left and followed a northward
trajectory to Cape Bowling Green in a 1 km resolution model but not in a 4 km resolution model. Our findings are consistent with this result; plume
properties in our intermediate-resolution simulations are more clearly
detected than in the coarse-resolution simulations. In addition, our results
expand on their findings by showing that the sensitivity of plume properties
in high-resolution models are highly dependent on shelf bathymetry. Schiller
and Kourafalou (2010) investigated the dynamics of large-scale river plumes
in idealized numerical experiments using HYCOM to address how the
development and structure of a buoyant plume is affected by the vertical and
horizontal redistribution of river inflow and bottom topography. Their
experiments show that a narrow inlet and flat bottom facilitate a larger
right-turning plume bulge region compared to a wide inlet and sloped bottom (see
their Fig. 8; Riv2c-f, Riv2c-s). This is complementary to our findings that
the MR plume, located on the wide and shallow LA shelf, has a larger
horizontal plume area compared to the AZ and CO plume when increasing the
horizontal resolution from intermediate to high. However, their discussion
was limited to an idealized, rectangular model domain without external
forcing, while our model simulations provide a realistic application to
natural river plume systems. The global application of the regional inlet
representation of river forcing was also used by NOAA's Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) models (Griffies et al., 2005). An internal,
pre-computed salinity source term was introduced into multiple vertical
layers. However, river representation was done through VSF rather than
through real mass or freshwater volume flux. Adding the real volume and mass
of freshwater through multiple layers has been widely used in regional
models like ROMS; it may be useful to adapt this technology into future ECCO
simulations and compare the results with the current surface injection
methods.</p>
      <p id="d1e3973">For the global ocean, river runoff is much smaller than the precipitation
and evaporation flux; therefore, for most<?pagebreak page1815?> OGCMs, ESMs, and GODAS products it
is parameterized. One of the most significant expected signatures of global
warming is an acceleration of the terrestrial hydrological cycle (IPCC,
2021; Piecuch and Wadehra, 2020). Both can significantly affect the
magnitude, distribution, and timing of global runoff, leading to extremes in
the frequency and magnitude of floods and droughts. When considering issues
related to water resource management under climate and land use and land cover
change, a key question such as “how will coastal oceans be impacted from
flood and drought events?” is challenging to answer (Fournier et al., 2019).
In the future, high-resolution global-ocean circulation models with DPR
forcing may help identify the primary forcing mechanisms (such as those from
climate-driven extreme events) that drive spatiotemporal variability of
large river plume systems just as skillfully as regional model setups.</p>
      <p id="d1e3976">Improved model representation of rivers may not be as important for global-
or basin-scale hydrological cycles as precipitation and evaporation (Du and
Zhang, 2015) but may be critical for the global carbon cycle
(Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Resplandy et al., 2018). River delivers large
amounts of anthropogenic nutrients to the coastal zone (Seitzinger et al.,
2005, 2010). The autochthonous production will transform inorganic nutrients
to organic nutrients while sequestering atmospheric CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. More importantly, rivers
also deliver dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and particulate organic carbon
(POC) to the coastal ocean, which can be remineralized and released as
CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> to the atmosphere. Until recently, most global-ocean
biogeochemistry models omitted or poorly represented riverine point sources
of nutrients and carbon. Lacroix et al. (2020) added yearly-constant riverine
loads to the ocean surface layer on coarse-resolution (1.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
models and assessed that CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> outgassing from river loads accounted for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 % of the global ocean CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> sink. We anticipate that
the implementation of DPR forcing and higher-resolution grids in ESMs and
the ECCO biogeochemical state estimates (ECCO-Darwin, Carroll et al., 2020)
will help better resolve the global carbon budget (Friedlingstein et al.,
2019).</p>
      <p id="d1e4032">LOAC development has historically had a low priority in OGCMs, ESMs, and
GODAPs and exchange of freshwater between rivers/estuaries and the coastal
ocean has been previously neglected. Our results demonstrate that the
representation of runoff forcing in ECCO simulations is a major source of
bias for coastal SSS. We believed our improvements of river runoff in ECCO
will directly contribute to (i) the evaluation, understanding, and
improvement of river-dominated coastal margins in global-ocean circulation
models; (ii) investigation of mechanisms that drive seasonal and interannual
variability in coastal plume processes; and (iii) bridging the gap between
land–ocean interactions. These efforts will ultimately help to better
resolve land–ocean–atmosphere processes and feedbacks in next-generation
Earth system models.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codedataavailability"><title>Code and data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e4039">The MITgcm  and user manual  are available from the project website: <uri>http://mitgcm.org/</uri> (last access: 29 March 2021). The ECCOv4 setup can be found at <uri>http://wwwcvs.mitgcm.org/viewvc/MITgcm/MITgcm_contrib/llc_hires/</uri> (Menemenlis, 2020a). The exact version of MITgcm, ECCOv4
configuration, and MATLAB routines to process the ECCOv4 output, generate the
target model skill assessment diagram, and produce the paper figures are
archived on Zenodo (<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4106405" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.4106405</ext-link>, Feng, 2020). The SMAP observations can be downloaded from
<uri>http://apdrc.soest.hawaii.edu/las/v6/dataset?catitem=2928</uri> (Menemenlis, 2020b). The model forcing and simulated salinity fields at different resolutions are archived on Zenodo (<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4095613" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.4095613</ext-link>, Zhang, 2020).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><?pagebreak page1816?><p id="d1e4057">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1801-2021-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1801-2021-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e4066">DM designed the experiments and HZ carried them
out. YF, DM, and DC developed the model code
and performed the simulations. YF prepared the paper with
contributions from HX, DC, YD, and HW.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e4072">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e4078">This research has been supported by the CAS Pioneer Hundred Talents Program Startup Fund (grant no. Y9SL11001), the Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Guangzhou) (grant nos. GML2019ZD0303 and 2019BT02H594), the Guangdong Key Laboratory of Ocean Remote Sensing (grant no. 2017B030301005-LORS2002), the State Key Laboratory of Tropical Oceanography Independent Research Fund (grant no. LTOZZ2103), the Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant nos. XDA15020901 and 133244KYSB20190031), the Institution of South China Sea Ecology and Environmental Engineering (grant no. ISEE2018PY05), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 41830538 and 42090042). Dimitris Menemenlis,
Dustin Carroll, and Hong Zhang carried out research at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with NASA, with grants from biological diversity; physical oceanography; and modeling, analysis, and prediction programs.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e4084">This paper was edited by Qiang Wang and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Adcroft, A.  and Campin, J.-M.: Rescaled height coordinates for accurate
representation of free-surface flows in ocean circulation models, Ocean
Model., 7, 269–284, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2003.09.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2003.09.003</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Adcroft, A., Campin, J.-M. Hill, C., and Marshall, J.: Implementation of an
Atmosphere–Ocean General Circulation Model on the Expanded Spherical Cube,
Mon. Weather Rev., 132, 2845–2863, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR2823.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR2823.1</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Banas, N. S., MacCready, P., and Hickey, B. M.: The Columbia River plume as
cross-shelf exporter and along-coast barrier, Cont. Shelf Res.,
2, 292–301, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2008.03.011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.csr.2008.03.011</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Barichivich, J., Gloor, E., Peylin, P., Brienen, R. J. W., Schöngart,
J., Espinoza, J. C., and Pattnayak, K. C.: Recent intensification of Amazon
flooding extremes driven by strengthened Walker circulation, Sci.
Adv., 4, eaat8785, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat8785" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/sciadv.aat8785</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Roelandt, C., Seierstad, I. A., Hoose, C., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 1: Description and basic evaluation of the physical climate, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 687–720, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bourgeois, T., Orr, J. C., Resplandy, L., Terhaar, J., Ethé, C., Gehlen, M., and Bopp, L.: Coastal-ocean uptake of anthropogenic carbon, Biogeosciences, 13, 4167–4185, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4167-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-13-4167-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Campin, J.-M., Marshall, J., and Ferreira, D.: Sea ice–ocean coupling using
a rescaled vertical coordinate z<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>, Ocean Model., 24, 1–14,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2008.05.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2008.05.005</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Carroll, D., Menemenlis, Adkins, J. F., Bowman, K. W., Brix, H., Dutkiewicz, S., Gierach, M. M., Hill, C., Jahn, O., Landschützer, P., Lauderdale, J. Liu, J. M., Naviaux, J. D., Manizza, M., Rödenbeck, C., Schimel, D. S., Van der Stocken, T., and Zhang, H.: The ECCO‐Darwin data‐assimilative global ocean biogeochemistry model: Estimates of seasonal to multidecadal surface ocean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and air‐sea CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001888, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001888" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019MS001888</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chao, S.-Y.: River-forced estuarine plumes, J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 18, 72–88, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1988)018&lt;0072:RFEP&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0485(1988)018&lt;0072:RFEP&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>,
1988a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chao, S.-Y.: Wind-driven motion of estuarine plumes, J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 18, 1144–1166, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1988)018&lt;1144:WDMOEP&gt;2.0.CO;2;" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0485(1988)018&lt;1144:WDMOEP&gt;2.0.CO;2;</ext-link> 1988b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cione, J. J. and Uhlhorn, E. W.: Sea surface temperature variability in
hurricanes: Implications with respect to intensity change, Mon. Weather
Rev., 131, 1783–1796, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175//2562.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175//2562.1</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>de Boyer Montégut, C., Madec, G., Fischer, A. S., Lazar, A., and
Ludicone, D.: Mixed layer depth over the global ocean: An examination of
profile data and a profile-based climatology, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 109, C12003,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004jc002378" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004jc002378</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Denamiel, C., Budgell, W. P., and Toumi, R.: The Congo River plume: Impact of
the forcing on the far-field and near-field dynamics, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 118, 964–989, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20062" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrc.20062</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Du, Y. and  Zhang, Y.: Satellite and Argo Observed Surface Salinity
Variations in the Tropical Indian Ocean and Their Association with the
Indian Ocean Dipole Mode, J. Climate, 28, 695–713,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00435.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00435.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fekete, B. M., Vörösmarty, C. J., and Grabs, W.: High-resolution
fields of global runoff combining observed river discharge and simulated
water balances, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 16, 15-11–15-10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999gb001254" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999gb001254</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Feng, Y.: Improved representation of river runoff in ECCOv4 simulations: implementation, evaluation and impacts to coastal plume regions, Zenodo, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4106405" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.4106405</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Feng, Y., DiMarco, S. F., Balaguru, K., and Xue, H.: Seasonal and interannual
variability of areal extent of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia from a coupled
physical-biogeochemical model: A new implication for management practice,
J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 124, 1939–1960,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JG004745" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018JG004745</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fennel, K., Hu, J., Laurent, A., Marta-Almeida, M., and Hetland, R.:
Sensitivity of hypoxia predictions for the northern Gulf of Mexico to
sediment oxygen consumption an<?pagebreak page1817?>d model nesting, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 118, 990–1002, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20077" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrc.20077</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fennel, K., Alin, S., Barbero, L., Evans, W., Bourgeois, T., Cooley, S., Dunne, J., Feely, R. A., Hernandez-Ayon, J. M., Hu, X., Lohrenz, S., Muller-Karger, F., Najjar, R., Robbins, L., Shadwick, E., Siedlecki, S., Steiner, N., Sutton, A., Turk, D., Vlahos, P., and Wang, Z. A.: Carbon cycling in the North American coastal ocean: a synthesis, Biogeosciences, 16, 1281–1304, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-1281-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-16-1281-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fong, D. A. and Geyer, W. R.: Response of a river plume during an upwelling
favorable wind event, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 106,
1067–1084, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jc900134" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000jc900134</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fong, D. A. and Geyer, W. R.: The Alongshore Transport of Freshwater in a
Surface-Trapped River Plume, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 32,
957–972, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(2002)032&lt;0957:TATOFI&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0485(2002)032&lt;0957:TATOFI&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Forget, G., Campin, J.-M., Heimbach, P., Hill, C. N., Ponte, R. M., and Wunsch, C.: ECCO version 4: an integrated framework for non-linear inverse modeling and global ocean state estimation, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3071–3104, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3071-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-8-3071-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fournier, S., Reager, J. T., Lee, T., Vazquez-Cuervo, J., David, C. H., and
Gierach, M. M.: SMAP observes flooding from land to sea: The Texas event of
2015, Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, L070821, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070821" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL070821</ext-link>,
2016a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fournier, S., Lee, T., and Gierach, M. M., Seasonal and interannual
variations of sea surface salinity associated with the Mississippi River
plume observed by SMOS and Aquarius, Remote Sens. Environ., 180, 431–439, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.02.050" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2016.02.050</ext-link>, 2016b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fournier, S., Vialard, J., Lengaigne, M., Lee, T., Gierach, M. M., and
Chaitanya, A. V. S.: Modulation of the Ganges-Brahmaputra river plume by the
Indian Ocean dipole and eddies inferred from satellite observations, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 122, 9591–9604, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013333" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017JC013333</ext-link>,
2017a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fournier, S., Vandemark, D., Gaultier, L., Lee, T., Jonsson, B., and
Gierach, M. M.: Interannual variation in offshore advection of Amazon-Orinoco
plume waters: Observations, forcing mechanisms, and impacts, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 122, 8966–8982, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013103" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017JC013103</ext-link>,
2017b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fournier, S., Reager, J. T., Dzwonkowski, B., and Vazquez-Cuervo, J.:
Statistical mapping of freshwater origin and fate signatures as land/ocean
“regions of influence” in the Gulf of Mexico, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 124, 4954–4973, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014784" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018JC014784</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M. W., O'Sullivan, M., Andrew, R. M., Hauck, J., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Le Quéré, C., Bakker, D. C. E., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bastos, A., Bastrikov, V., Becker, M., Bopp, L., Buitenhuis, E., Chandra, N., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Currie, K. I., Feely, R. A., Gehlen, M., Gilfillan, D., Gkritzalis, T., Goll, D. S., Gruber, N., Gutekunst, S., Harris, I., Haverd, V., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Joetzjer, E., Kaplan, J. O., Kato, E., Klein Goldewijk, K., Korsbakken, J. I., Landschützer, P., Lauvset, S. K., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Marland, G., McGuire, P. C., Melton, J. R., Metzl, N., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S.-I., Neill, C., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Peregon, A., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Séférian, R., Schwinger, J., Smith, N., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tubiello, F. N., van der Werf, G. R., Wiltshire, A. J., and Zaehle, S.: Global Carbon Budget 2019, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 1783–1838, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>García Berdeal, I.,  Hickey, B. M., and  Kawase, M.: Influence of wind
stress and ambient flow on a high discharge river plume, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 107,
13-11–13-24, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001jc000932" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001jc000932</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Garvine, R. W.: Penetration of buoyant coastal discharge onto the continental
shelf: a numerical model experiment, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 29,
1892–1909, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1999)029&lt;1892:POBCDO&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0485(1999)029&lt;1892:POBCDO&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Garvine, R. W.: The impact of model configuration in studies of buoyant
coastal discharge, J. Marine Resh., 59, 193–225,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1357/002224001762882637" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1357/002224001762882637</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gaspar, P., Grégoris, Y., and Lefevre, J.-M.: A simple eddy kinetic
energy model for simulations of the oceanic vertical mixing: Tests at
station Papa and long-term upper ocean study site, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 95, 16179–16193,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC095iC09p16179" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JC095iC09p16179</ext-link>, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gierach, M. M., Vazquez-Cuervo, J., Lee, T., and Tsontos, V. M.: Aquarius
and SMOS detect effects of an extreme Mississippi River flooding event in
the Gulf of Mexico, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, L50995,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50995" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/grl.50995</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Griffies, S. M., Gnanadesikan, A., Dixon, K. W., Dunne, J. P., Gerdes, R., Harrison, M. J., Rosati, A., Russell, J. L., Samuels, B. L., Spelman, M. J., Winton, M., and Zhang, R.: Formulation of an ocean model for global climate simulations, Ocean Sci., 1, 45–79, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/os-1-45-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/os-1-45-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Halliwell, G. R.: Evaluation of vertical coordinate and vertical mixing
algorithms in the HYbrid-Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM), Ocean Model.,
7, 285–322, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2003.10.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2003.10.002</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Herzfeld, M.: Methods for freshwater riverine input into regional ocean
models, Ocean Model., 90, 1–15, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2015.04.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2015.04.001</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Huang, R. X.: Real Freshwater Flux as a Natural Boundary Condition for the
Salinity Balance and Thermohaline Circulation Forced by Evaporation and
Precipitation, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 23, 2428–2446,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1993)023&lt;2428:RFFAAN&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0485(1993)023&lt;2428:RFFAAN&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>,
1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers, in: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems, edited by: Shukla, P. R.,  Skea, J.,  Calvo Buendia, E.,  Masson-Delmotte, V.,  Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C.,  Zhai, P.,  Slade, R.,  Connors, S.,  van Diemen, R.,  Ferrat, M., Haughey, E.,  Luz, S.,  Neogi, S.,  Pathak, M.,  Petzold, J.,  Portugal Pereira, J., Vyas, P.,  Huntley, E.,  Kissick, K.,  Belkacemi, M., and  Malley, J., in press,
2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jolliff, J. K., Kindle, J. C., Shulman, I., Penta, B., Friedrichs, M. A. M.,
Helber, R., and Arnone, R. A.: Summary diagrams for coupled
hydrodynamic-ecosystem model skill assessment, J. Marine Syst.,
76, 64–82, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.05.014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.05.014</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kourafalou, V. H., Oey, L.-Y., Wang, J. D., and Lee, T. N.: The fate of
river discharge on the continental shelf: 1. Modeling the rive<?pagebreak page1818?>r plume and
the inner shelf coastal current, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 3415–3434,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95JC03024" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/95JC03024</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lacroix, F., Ilyina, T., and Hartmann, J.: Oceanic CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> outgassing and biological production hotspots induced by pre-industrial river loads of nutrients and carbon in a global modeling approach, Biogeosciences, 17, 55–88, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-55-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-17-55-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Landschützer, P., Laruelle, G. G., Roobaert, A., and Regnier, P.: A uniform <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> climatology combining open and coastal oceans, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2537–2553, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2537-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-12-2537-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lentz, S. J.: The Amazon River plume during AMASSEDS: subtidal current
variability and the importance of wind forcing, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 100, 2377–2390, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/94JC00343" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/94JC00343</ext-link>, 1995a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lentz, S. J.: Seasonal variations in the horizontal structure of the Amazon
plume inferred from historical hydrographic data, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 100, 2391–2400, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/94JC01847" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/94JC01847</ext-link>, 1995b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liang, L., Xue, H., and Shu, Y.:  The Indonesian throughflow and the
circulation in the Banda Sea: A modeling study, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 124, 3089–3106, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014926" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018JC014926</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liao, X., Du, Y., Wang, T., Hu, S., Zhan, H., Liu, H., and Wu, G.,
High-Frequency Variations in Pearl River Plume Observed by Soil Moisture
Active Passive Sea Surface Salinity, Remote Sensing, 12, 563,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12030563" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs12030563</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liu, Y., MacCready, P., and Hickey, B. M., Columbia River plume patterns in
summer 2004 as revealed by a hindcast coastal ocean circulation model,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L02601, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036447" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GL036447</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Marshall, J., Adcroft, A., Hill, C., Perelman, L., and Heisey, C.: A
finite-volume, incompressible Navier Stokes model for studies of the ocean
on parallel computers, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 102, 5753–5766, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96jc02775" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/96jc02775</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mecklenburg, S., Drusch, M., Kerr, Y. H., Font, J., Martin-Neira, M.,
Delwart, S., and Crapolicchio, R.: ESA's soil moisture and ocean salinity
mission: Mission performance and operations, IEEE T. Geosci.
Remote, 50, 1354–1366, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2187666" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TGRS.2012.2187666</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Menemenlis, D.: ECCOv4 setup, available at: <uri>http://wwwcvs.mitgcm.org/viewvc/MITgcm/MITgcm_contrib/llc_hires/</uri> (last access: 29 March 2021), 2020a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Menemenlis, D.: SMAP observations, available at: <uri>http://apdrc.soest.hawaii.edu/las/v6/dataset?catitem=2928</uri> (last access: 29 March 2021), 2020b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Menemenlis, D., Hill, C. N., Adcroft, A. J., Campin, J.-M., Cheng, B.,
Ciotti, R. B., and Zhang, J.: NASA Supercomputer Improves Prospects for
Ocean Climate Research, EOS Transactions AGU, 86, 89–96,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO090002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005EO090002</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Menemenlis, D., Campin, J.-M., Heimbach, P., Hill, C. N., Lee, T., Nguyen,
A. T., and Zhang, H.: ECCO2: High Resolution Global Ocean and Sea Ice Data
Synthesis, Mercator Ocean Quarterly Newsletter, 31, 13–21, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Meng, Z., Ning, L. Yuping G., and Yang, F.: Exchanges of surface plastic
particles in the South China Sea through straits using Lagrangian method,
J. Tropical Oceanogr., 39, 109–116,  available at: <uri>http://journal15.magtechjournal.com/Jwk3_rdhyxb/article/2020/1009-5470/1009-5470-39-5-109.shtml</uri> (last access: 29 March 2021), 2020 (in
Chinese with English abstract).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Molleri, G. S. F., Novo, E. M. L. M., and Kampel, M.: Space-time variability of
the Amazon River plume based on satellite ocean color, Cont. Shelf
Res., 30, 342–352, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2009.11.015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.csr.2009.11.015</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Neetu, S., Lengaigne, M., Vincent, E. M., Vialard, J., Madec, G., Samson,
G., and Durand, F.: Influence of upper-ocean stratification on tropical
cyclones-induced surface cooling in the Bay of Bengal, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 117, C12020, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JC008433" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JC008433</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Palma, E. D. and Matano, R. P.: An idealized study of near equatorial
river plumes, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 122, 3599–3620,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC012554" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JC012554</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Piecuch, C. G. and Wadehra, R.: Dynamic sea level variability due to
seasonal river discharge: A preliminary global ocean model study.
Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL086984,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL086984" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020GL086984</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rao, R. R. and Sivakumar, R.: Seasonal variability of the salt budget of the
mixed layer and near-surface layer salinity structure of the tropical Indian
Ocean from a new global ocean salinity climatology, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 108, 3009, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JC000907" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JC000907</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Resplandy, L., Keeling, R. F., Rödenbeck, C., Stephens, B. B., Khatiwala,
S., Rodgers, K. B., Long, M. C., Bopp, L., and  Tans, P. P.: Revision of global
carbon fluxes based on a reassessment of oceanic and riverine carbon
transport, Nat. Geosci., 11, 504–509, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0151-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41561-018-0151-3</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Roobaert, A., Laruelle, G. G. Landschützer, P., Gruber, N., Chou, L., and
Regnier, P.: The Spatiotemporal Dynamics of the Sources and Sinks of CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in
the Global Coastal Ocean, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 33, 1693–1714,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GB006239" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019GB006239</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Roullet, G. and Madec, G.: Salt conservation, free surface, and varying
levels: A new formulation for ocean general circulation models, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 105,
23927–23942, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jc900089" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000jc900089</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Santini, M. and Caporaso, L.: Evaluation of freshwater flow from rivers to
the sea in CMIP5 simulations: Insights from the Congo River basin, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 10278–10300,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD027422" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2017JD027422</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schiller, R. V. and Kourafalou, V. H.: Modeling river plume dynamics with
the HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model, Ocean Model., 33, 101–117,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.12.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.12.005</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Seitzinger, S. P., Harrison, J. A., Dumont, E., Beusen, A. H. W., and
Bouwman, A. F.: Sources and delivery of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus to
the coastal zone: An overview of Global Nutrient Export from Watersheds
(NEWS) models and their application, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19,
GB4S01, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GB002606" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005GB002606</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Seitzinger, S. P., Mayorga, E., Bouwman, A. F., Kroeze, C., Beusen, A. H.
W., Billen, G., Drecht, G. V., Dumont, E., Fekete, B. M., Garnier, J., and
Harrison, J. A.: Global river nutrient export: A scenario analysis of past
and future trends, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 24, GB0A08,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003587" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009GB003587</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sengupta, D., Goddalehundi, B. R., and Anitha, D. S.: Cyclone-induced mixing
does not cool SST in th<?pagebreak page1819?>e post-monsoon North Bay of Bengal, Atmos.
Sci. Lett., 9, 1–6, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.162" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/asl.162</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stammer, D., Ueyoshi, K., Köhl, A., Large, W. G., Josey, S. A., and
Wunsch, C.: Estimating air-sea fluxes of heat, freshwater, and momentum
through global ocean data assimilation, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
109, C05023, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003jc002082" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003jc002082</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Su, Z., Wang, J., Klein, P., Thompson, A. F., and Menemenlis, D.: Ocean sub
mesoscales as a key component of the global heat budget, Nat.
Commun., 9, 775, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-02983-w" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-018-02983-w</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Suzuki, T., Yamazaki, D., Tsujino, H., Komuro, Y., Nakano, H., and Urakawa,
S.: A dataset of continental river discharge based on JRA-55 for use in a
global ocean circulation model, J. Oceanogr., 74, 421–429,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10872-017-0458-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10872-017-0458-5</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Timmermann, R., Danilov, S., Schröter, J., Böning, C., Sidorenko,
D., and Rollenhagen, K.: Ocean circulation and sea ice distribution in a
finite element global sea ice–ocean model, Ocean Model., 27, 114–129,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2008.10.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2008.10.009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tseng, Y.-H., Bryan, F. O., and Whitney, M. M.: Impacts of the representation
of riverine freshwater input in the community earth system model, Ocean
Model., 105, 71–86, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2016.08.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2016.08.002</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tsujino, H., Urakawa, S., Nakano, H., Small, R. J., Kim, W. M., Yeager, S. G., Danabasoglu, G., Suzuki, T., Bamber, J. L., Bentsen, M., Böning, C. W., Bozec, A., Chassignet, E. P., Curchitser, E., Boeira Dias, F., Durack, P. J., Griffies, S. M., Harada, Y., Ilicak, M., Josey, S. A., Kobayashi, C., Kobayashi, S., Komuro, Y., Large, W. G., Sommer, J. L., Marsland, S. J., Masina, S., Scheinert, M., Tomita, H., Valdivieso, M., and Yamazaki, D.: JRA-55 based surface dataset for driving ocean–sea-ice
models (JRA55-do), Ocean Model., 130, 79–139,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2018.07.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2018.07.002</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Vialard, J. and Delecluse, P.: An OGCM study for the TOGA decade. Part I:
Role of salinity in the physics of the western Pacific fresh pool, J.
Phys. Oceanogr., 28, 1071–1088, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1998)028&lt;1071:AOSFTT&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0485(1998)028&lt;1071:AOSFTT&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>,
1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Vinaychandran, P., Murty, V. S. N., and Ramesh Babu, V.: Observations of
barrier layer formation in the Bay of Bengal during summer monsoon, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 107, 8018, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JC000831" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JC000831</ext-link>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Volodin, E. M., Dianskii, N. A., and Gusev, A. V.: Simulating present-day
climate with the INMCM4.0 coupled model of the atmospheric and oceanic
general circulations, Izvestiya, Atmos. Ocean. Phys., 46,
414–431, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1134/S000143381004002X" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1134/S000143381004002X</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Walker, N. D.: Satellite assessment of Mississippi River plume variability:
causes and predictability, Remote Sens. Environ., 58, 21–35,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(95)00259-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0034-4257(95)00259-6</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ward, N. D., Megonigal, J. P., Bond-Lamberty, B., Bailey, V. L., Butman, D., Canuel, E. A., Diefenderfer, H., Ganju, N. K., Goñi, M. A., Graham, E. B., Hopkinson, C. S., Khangaonkar, T., Langley, J. A., McDowell, N. G., Myers-Pigg, A. N., Neumann, R. B., Osburn, C. L., Price, R. M., Rowland, J., Sengupta, A., Simard, M., Thornton, P. E., Tzortziou, M., Vargas, R., Weisenhorn, P. B., and Windham-Myers, L.: Representing the function
and sensitivity of coastal interfaces in Earth system models, Nat. Commun., 11, 2458,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16236-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-020-16236-2</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Willmott, C. J.: On the validation of models, Phys. Geogr., 2, 184–194,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02723646.1981.10642213" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02723646.1981.10642213</ext-link>, 1981.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yankovsky, A. E. and Chapman D. C.: A Simple Theory for the Fate of Buoyant Coastal Discharges, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 27, 1386–1401, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;1386:ASTFTF&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;1386:ASTFTF&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yueh, S. H., Tang, W., Fore, A. G., Neumann, G., Hayashi, A., Freedman, A.,
and Lagerloef, G. S. L-band passive and active microwave geophysical model
functions of ocean surface winds and applications to Aquarius retrieval,
IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 51, 4619–4632,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2013.2266915" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TGRS.2013.2266915</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yueh, S. H., Tang, W., Fore, A., Hayashi, A., Song, Y. T., and Lagerloef, G.:
Aquarius geophysical model function and combined active passive algorithm
for ocean surface salinity and wind retrieval, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 119, 5360–5379, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JC009939" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JC009939</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, H.: MITgcm model setup and output for “Improved representation of river runoff in ECCO simulations: implementation, evaluation, and impacts to coastal plume regions” [Data set], Zenodo, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4095613" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.4095613</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, H., Menemenlis, D., and Fenty, G.: ECCO LLC270 ocean‐ice state estimate, available at: <uri>http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/119821</uri> (last access: 29 March 2021), 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Improved representation of river runoff in Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean Version 4 (ECCOv4) simulations: implementation, evaluation, and impacts to coastal plume regions</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>In this study, we improve the representation of global river runoff in the
Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean Version 4 (ECCOv4)
framework, allowing for a more realistic treatment of coastal plume
dynamics. We use a suite of experiments to explore the sensitivity of
coastal plume regions to runoff forcing, model grid resolution, and grid
type. The results show that simulated sea surface salinity (SSS) is reduced
as the model grid resolution increases. Compared to Soil Moisture Active
Passive (SMAP) observations, simulated SSS is closest to SMAP when using
daily, point-source runoff (DPR) and the intermediate-resolution LLC270
grid. The Willmott skill score, which quantifies agreement between models and
SMAP, yields up to 0.92 for large rivers such as the Amazon. There was no
major difference in SSS for tropical and temperate coastal rivers when the
model grid type was changed from the ECCO v4 latitude–longitude–polar-cap grid to the ECCO2 cube–sphere grid. We also found that using DPR forcing and
increasing model resolution from the coarse-resolution LLC90 grid to the
intermediate-resolution LLC270 grid elevated the river plume area, volume,
stabilized the stratification and shoal the mixed layer depth (MLD).
Additionally, we find that the impacts of increasing model resolution from the intermediate-resolution LLC270 grid to the high-resolution LLC540 grid are
regionally dependent. The Mississippi River Plume is more sensitive than
other regions, possibly because the wider and shallower Texas–Louisiana
shelf drives a stronger baroclinic effect, as well as relatively weak
sub-grid vertical mixing and adjustment in this region. Since rivers deliver
large amounts of freshwater and anthropogenic materials to coastal regions,
improving the representation of river runoff in global, high-resolution
models will advance studies of coastal hypoxia, carbon cycling, and regional
weather and climate and will ultimately help to predict
land–ocean–atmospheric feedbacks seamlessly in the next generation of Earth
system models.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Adcroft, A.  and Campin, J.-M.: Rescaled height coordinates for accurate
representation of free-surface flows in ocean circulation models, Ocean
Model., 7, 269–284, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2003.09.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2003.09.003</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Adcroft, A., Campin, J.-M. Hill, C., and Marshall, J.: Implementation of an
Atmosphere–Ocean General Circulation Model on the Expanded Spherical Cube,
Mon. Weather Rev., 132, 2845–2863, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR2823.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR2823.1</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Banas, N. S., MacCready, P., and Hickey, B. M.: The Columbia River plume as
cross-shelf exporter and along-coast barrier, Cont. Shelf Res.,
2, 292–301, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2008.03.011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2008.03.011</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Barichivich, J., Gloor, E., Peylin, P., Brienen, R. J. W., Schöngart,
J., Espinoza, J. C., and Pattnayak, K. C.: Recent intensification of Amazon
flooding extremes driven by strengthened Walker circulation, Sci.
Adv., 4, eaat8785, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat8785" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat8785</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Roelandt, C., Seierstad, I. A., Hoose, C., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 1: Description and basic evaluation of the physical climate, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 687–720, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Bourgeois, T., Orr, J. C., Resplandy, L., Terhaar, J., Ethé, C., Gehlen, M., and Bopp, L.: Coastal-ocean uptake of anthropogenic carbon, Biogeosciences, 13, 4167–4185, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4167-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4167-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Campin, J.-M., Marshall, J., and Ferreira, D.: Sea ice–ocean coupling using
a rescaled vertical coordinate z∗, Ocean Model., 24, 1–14,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2008.05.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2008.05.005</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Carroll, D., Menemenlis, Adkins, J. F., Bowman, K. W., Brix, H., Dutkiewicz, S., Gierach, M. M., Hill, C., Jahn, O., Landschützer, P., Lauderdale, J. Liu, J. M., Naviaux, J. D., Manizza, M., Rödenbeck, C., Schimel, D. S., Van der Stocken, T., and Zhang, H.: The ECCO‐Darwin data‐assimilative global ocean biogeochemistry model: Estimates of seasonal to multidecadal surface ocean <i>p</i>CO<sub>2</sub> and air‐sea CO<sub>2</sub> flux, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001888, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001888" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001888</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Chao, S.-Y.: River-forced estuarine plumes, J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 18, 72–88, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1988)018&lt;0072:RFEP&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1988)018&lt;0072:RFEP&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>,
1988a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Chao, S.-Y.: Wind-driven motion of estuarine plumes, J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 18, 1144–1166, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1988)018&lt;1144:WDMOEP&gt;2.0.CO;2;" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1988)018&lt;1144:WDMOEP&gt;2.0.CO;2;</a> 1988b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Cione, J. J. and Uhlhorn, E. W.: Sea surface temperature variability in
hurricanes: Implications with respect to intensity change, Mon. Weather
Rev., 131, 1783–1796, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175//2562.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175//2562.1</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>de Boyer Montégut, C., Madec, G., Fischer, A. S., Lazar, A., and
Ludicone, D.: Mixed layer depth over the global ocean: An examination of
profile data and a profile-based climatology, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 109, C12003,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004jc002378" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004jc002378</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Denamiel, C., Budgell, W. P., and Toumi, R.: The Congo River plume: Impact of
the forcing on the far-field and near-field dynamics, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 118, 964–989, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20062" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20062</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Du, Y. and  Zhang, Y.: Satellite and Argo Observed Surface Salinity
Variations in the Tropical Indian Ocean and Their Association with the
Indian Ocean Dipole Mode, J. Climate, 28, 695–713,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00435.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00435.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Fekete, B. M., Vörösmarty, C. J., and Grabs, W.: High-resolution
fields of global runoff combining observed river discharge and simulated
water balances, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 16, 15-11–15-10, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999gb001254" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999gb001254</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Feng, Y.: Improved representation of river runoff in ECCOv4 simulations: implementation, evaluation and impacts to coastal plume regions, Zenodo, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4106405" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4106405</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Feng, Y., DiMarco, S. F., Balaguru, K., and Xue, H.: Seasonal and interannual
variability of areal extent of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia from a coupled
physical-biogeochemical model: A new implication for management practice,
J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 124, 1939–1960,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JG004745" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JG004745</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Fennel, K., Hu, J., Laurent, A., Marta-Almeida, M., and Hetland, R.:
Sensitivity of hypoxia predictions for the northern Gulf of Mexico to
sediment oxygen consumption and model nesting, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 118, 990–1002, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20077" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20077</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Fennel, K., Alin, S., Barbero, L., Evans, W., Bourgeois, T., Cooley, S., Dunne, J., Feely, R. A., Hernandez-Ayon, J. M., Hu, X., Lohrenz, S., Muller-Karger, F., Najjar, R., Robbins, L., Shadwick, E., Siedlecki, S., Steiner, N., Sutton, A., Turk, D., Vlahos, P., and Wang, Z. A.: Carbon cycling in the North American coastal ocean: a synthesis, Biogeosciences, 16, 1281–1304, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-1281-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-1281-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Fong, D. A. and Geyer, W. R.: Response of a river plume during an upwelling
favorable wind event, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 106,
1067–1084, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jc900134" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jc900134</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Fong, D. A. and Geyer, W. R.: The Alongshore Transport of Freshwater in a
Surface-Trapped River Plume, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 32,
957–972, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(2002)032&lt;0957:TATOFI&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(2002)032&lt;0957:TATOFI&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation> Forget, G., Campin, J.-M., Heimbach, P., Hill, C. N., Ponte, R. M., and Wunsch, C.: ECCO version 4: an integrated framework for non-linear inverse modeling and global ocean state estimation, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3071–3104, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3071-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3071-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Fournier, S., Reager, J. T., Lee, T., Vazquez-Cuervo, J., David, C. H., and
Gierach, M. M.: SMAP observes flooding from land to sea: The Texas event of
2015, Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, L070821, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070821" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070821</a>,
2016a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Fournier, S., Lee, T., and Gierach, M. M., Seasonal and interannual
variations of sea surface salinity associated with the Mississippi River
plume observed by SMOS and Aquarius, Remote Sens. Environ., 180, 431–439, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.02.050" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.02.050</a>, 2016b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Fournier, S., Vialard, J., Lengaigne, M., Lee, T., Gierach, M. M., and
Chaitanya, A. V. S.: Modulation of the Ganges-Brahmaputra river plume by the
Indian Ocean dipole and eddies inferred from satellite observations, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 122, 9591–9604, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013333" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013333</a>,
2017a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Fournier, S., Vandemark, D., Gaultier, L., Lee, T., Jonsson, B., and
Gierach, M. M.: Interannual variation in offshore advection of Amazon-Orinoco
plume waters: Observations, forcing mechanisms, and impacts, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 122, 8966–8982, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013103" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013103</a>,
2017b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Fournier, S., Reager, J. T., Dzwonkowski, B., and Vazquez-Cuervo, J.:
Statistical mapping of freshwater origin and fate signatures as land/ocean
“regions of influence” in the Gulf of Mexico, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 124, 4954–4973, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014784" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014784</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M. W., O'Sullivan, M., Andrew, R. M., Hauck, J., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Le Quéré, C., Bakker, D. C. E., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bastos, A., Bastrikov, V., Becker, M., Bopp, L., Buitenhuis, E., Chandra, N., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Currie, K. I., Feely, R. A., Gehlen, M., Gilfillan, D., Gkritzalis, T., Goll, D. S., Gruber, N., Gutekunst, S., Harris, I., Haverd, V., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Joetzjer, E., Kaplan, J. O., Kato, E., Klein Goldewijk, K., Korsbakken, J. I., Landschützer, P., Lauvset, S. K., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Marland, G., McGuire, P. C., Melton, J. R., Metzl, N., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S.-I., Neill, C., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Peregon, A., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Séférian, R., Schwinger, J., Smith, N., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tubiello, F. N., van der Werf, G. R., Wiltshire, A. J., and Zaehle, S.: Global Carbon Budget 2019, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 1783–1838, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>García Berdeal, I.,  Hickey, B. M., and  Kawase, M.: Influence of wind
stress and ambient flow on a high discharge river plume, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 107,
13-11–13-24, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001jc000932" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001jc000932</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Garvine, R. W.: Penetration of buoyant coastal discharge onto the continental
shelf: a numerical model experiment, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 29,
1892–1909, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1999)029&lt;1892:POBCDO&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1999)029&lt;1892:POBCDO&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Garvine, R. W.: The impact of model configuration in studies of buoyant
coastal discharge, J. Marine Resh., 59, 193–225,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1357/002224001762882637" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1357/002224001762882637</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Gaspar, P., Grégoris, Y., and Lefevre, J.-M.: A simple eddy kinetic
energy model for simulations of the oceanic vertical mixing: Tests at
station Papa and long-term upper ocean study site, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 95, 16179–16193,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC095iC09p16179" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JC095iC09p16179</a>, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Gierach, M. M., Vazquez-Cuervo, J., Lee, T., and Tsontos, V. M.: Aquarius
and SMOS detect effects of an extreme Mississippi River flooding event in
the Gulf of Mexico, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, L50995,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50995" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50995</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation> Griffies, S. M., Gnanadesikan, A., Dixon, K. W., Dunne, J. P., Gerdes, R., Harrison, M. J., Rosati, A., Russell, J. L., Samuels, B. L., Spelman, M. J., Winton, M., and Zhang, R.: Formulation of an ocean model for global climate simulations, Ocean Sci., 1, 45–79, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/os-1-45-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/os-1-45-2005</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Halliwell, G. R.: Evaluation of vertical coordinate and vertical mixing
algorithms in the HYbrid-Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM), Ocean Model.,
7, 285–322, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2003.10.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2003.10.002</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Herzfeld, M.: Methods for freshwater riverine input into regional ocean
models, Ocean Model., 90, 1–15, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2015.04.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2015.04.001</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Huang, R. X.: Real Freshwater Flux as a Natural Boundary Condition for the
Salinity Balance and Thermohaline Circulation Forced by Evaporation and
Precipitation, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 23, 2428–2446,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1993)023&lt;2428:RFFAAN&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1993)023&lt;2428:RFFAAN&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>,
1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers, in: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems, edited by: Shukla, P. R.,  Skea, J.,  Calvo Buendia, E.,  Masson-Delmotte, V.,  Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C.,  Zhai, P.,  Slade, R.,  Connors, S.,  van Diemen, R.,  Ferrat, M., Haughey, E.,  Luz, S.,  Neogi, S.,  Pathak, M.,  Petzold, J.,  Portugal Pereira, J., Vyas, P.,  Huntley, E.,  Kissick, K.,  Belkacemi, M., and  Malley, J., in press,
2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Jolliff, J. K., Kindle, J. C., Shulman, I., Penta, B., Friedrichs, M. A. M.,
Helber, R., and Arnone, R. A.: Summary diagrams for coupled
hydrodynamic-ecosystem model skill assessment, J. Marine Syst.,
76, 64–82, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.05.014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.05.014</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Kourafalou, V. H., Oey, L.-Y., Wang, J. D., and Lee, T. N.: The fate of
river discharge on the continental shelf: 1. Modeling the river plume and
the inner shelf coastal current, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 3415–3434,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95JC03024" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/95JC03024</a>, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Lacroix, F., Ilyina, T., and Hartmann, J.: Oceanic CO<sub>2</sub> outgassing and biological production hotspots induced by pre-industrial river loads of nutrients and carbon in a global modeling approach, Biogeosciences, 17, 55–88, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-55-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-55-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Landschützer, P., Laruelle, G. G., Roobaert, A., and Regnier, P.: A uniform <i>p</i>CO<sub>2</sub> climatology combining open and coastal oceans, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2537–2553, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2537-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2537-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Lentz, S. J.: The Amazon River plume during AMASSEDS: subtidal current
variability and the importance of wind forcing, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 100, 2377–2390, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/94JC00343" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/94JC00343</a>, 1995a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Lentz, S. J.: Seasonal variations in the horizontal structure of the Amazon
plume inferred from historical hydrographic data, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 100, 2391–2400, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/94JC01847" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/94JC01847</a>, 1995b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Liang, L., Xue, H., and Shu, Y.:  The Indonesian throughflow and the
circulation in the Banda Sea: A modeling study, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 124, 3089–3106, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014926" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014926</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Liao, X., Du, Y., Wang, T., Hu, S., Zhan, H., Liu, H., and Wu, G.,
High-Frequency Variations in Pearl River Plume Observed by Soil Moisture
Active Passive Sea Surface Salinity, Remote Sensing, 12, 563,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12030563" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12030563</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Liu, Y., MacCready, P., and Hickey, B. M., Columbia River plume patterns in
summer 2004 as revealed by a hindcast coastal ocean circulation model,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L02601, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036447" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036447</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Marshall, J., Adcroft, A., Hill, C., Perelman, L., and Heisey, C.: A
finite-volume, incompressible Navier Stokes model for studies of the ocean
on parallel computers, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 102, 5753–5766, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96jc02775" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/96jc02775</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Mecklenburg, S., Drusch, M., Kerr, Y. H., Font, J., Martin-Neira, M.,
Delwart, S., and Crapolicchio, R.: ESA's soil moisture and ocean salinity
mission: Mission performance and operations, IEEE T. Geosci.
Remote, 50, 1354–1366, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2187666" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2187666</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Menemenlis, D.: ECCOv4 setup, available at: <a href="http://wwwcvs.mitgcm.org/viewvc/MITgcm/MITgcm_contrib/llc_hires/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 29 March 2021), 2020a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Menemenlis, D.: SMAP observations, available at: <a href="http://apdrc.soest.hawaii.edu/las/v6/dataset?catitem=2928" target="_blank"/> (last access: 29 March 2021), 2020b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Menemenlis, D., Hill, C. N., Adcroft, A. J., Campin, J.-M., Cheng, B.,
Ciotti, R. B., and Zhang, J.: NASA Supercomputer Improves Prospects for
Ocean Climate Research, EOS Transactions AGU, 86, 89–96,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO090002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO090002</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Menemenlis, D., Campin, J.-M., Heimbach, P., Hill, C. N., Lee, T., Nguyen,
A. T., and Zhang, H.: ECCO2: High Resolution Global Ocean and Sea Ice Data
Synthesis, Mercator Ocean Quarterly Newsletter, 31, 13–21, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Meng, Z., Ning, L. Yuping G., and Yang, F.: Exchanges of surface plastic
particles in the South China Sea through straits using Lagrangian method,
J. Tropical Oceanogr., 39, 109–116,  available at: <a href="http://journal15.magtechjournal.com/Jwk3_rdhyxb/article/2020/1009-5470/1009-5470-39-5-109.shtml" target="_blank"/> (last access: 29 March 2021), 2020 (in
Chinese with English abstract).
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Molleri, G. S. F., Novo, E. M. L. M., and Kampel, M.: Space-time variability of
the Amazon River plume based on satellite ocean color, Cont. Shelf
Res., 30, 342–352, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2009.11.015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2009.11.015</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Neetu, S., Lengaigne, M., Vincent, E. M., Vialard, J., Madec, G., Samson,
G., and Durand, F.: Influence of upper-ocean stratification on tropical
cyclones-induced surface cooling in the Bay of Bengal, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 117, C12020, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JC008433" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JC008433</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Palma, E. D. and Matano, R. P.: An idealized study of near equatorial
river plumes, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 122, 3599–3620,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC012554" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC012554</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Piecuch, C. G. and Wadehra, R.: Dynamic sea level variability due to
seasonal river discharge: A preliminary global ocean model study.
Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL086984,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL086984" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL086984</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Rao, R. R. and Sivakumar, R.: Seasonal variability of the salt budget of the
mixed layer and near-surface layer salinity structure of the tropical Indian
Ocean from a new global ocean salinity climatology, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 108, 3009, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JC000907" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JC000907</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Resplandy, L., Keeling, R. F., Rödenbeck, C., Stephens, B. B., Khatiwala,
S., Rodgers, K. B., Long, M. C., Bopp, L., and  Tans, P. P.: Revision of global
carbon fluxes based on a reassessment of oceanic and riverine carbon
transport, Nat. Geosci., 11, 504–509, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0151-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0151-3</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Roobaert, A., Laruelle, G. G. Landschützer, P., Gruber, N., Chou, L., and
Regnier, P.: The Spatiotemporal Dynamics of the Sources and Sinks of CO<sub>2</sub> in
the Global Coastal Ocean, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 33, 1693–1714,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GB006239" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GB006239</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Roullet, G. and Madec, G.: Salt conservation, free surface, and varying
levels: A new formulation for ocean general circulation models, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 105,
23927–23942, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jc900089" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jc900089</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Santini, M. and Caporaso, L.: Evaluation of freshwater flow from rivers to
the sea in CMIP5 simulations: Insights from the Congo River basin, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 10278–10300,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD027422" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD027422</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Schiller, R. V. and Kourafalou, V. H.: Modeling river plume dynamics with
the HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model, Ocean Model., 33, 101–117,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.12.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.12.005</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Seitzinger, S. P., Harrison, J. A., Dumont, E., Beusen, A. H. W., and
Bouwman, A. F.: Sources and delivery of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus to
the coastal zone: An overview of Global Nutrient Export from Watersheds
(NEWS) models and their application, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19,
GB4S01, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GB002606" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GB002606</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Seitzinger, S. P., Mayorga, E., Bouwman, A. F., Kroeze, C., Beusen, A. H.
W., Billen, G., Drecht, G. V., Dumont, E., Fekete, B. M., Garnier, J., and
Harrison, J. A.: Global river nutrient export: A scenario analysis of past
and future trends, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 24, GB0A08,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003587" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003587</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>Sengupta, D., Goddalehundi, B. R., and Anitha, D. S.: Cyclone-induced mixing
does not cool SST in the post-monsoon North Bay of Bengal, Atmos.
Sci. Lett., 9, 1–6, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.162" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.162</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>Stammer, D., Ueyoshi, K., Köhl, A., Large, W. G., Josey, S. A., and
Wunsch, C.: Estimating air-sea fluxes of heat, freshwater, and momentum
through global ocean data assimilation, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
109, C05023, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003jc002082" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003jc002082</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>Su, Z., Wang, J., Klein, P., Thompson, A. F., and Menemenlis, D.: Ocean sub
mesoscales as a key component of the global heat budget, Nat.
Commun., 9, 775, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-02983-w" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-02983-w</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Suzuki, T., Yamazaki, D., Tsujino, H., Komuro, Y., Nakano, H., and Urakawa,
S.: A dataset of continental river discharge based on JRA-55 for use in a
global ocean circulation model, J. Oceanogr., 74, 421–429,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10872-017-0458-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10872-017-0458-5</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Timmermann, R., Danilov, S., Schröter, J., Böning, C., Sidorenko,
D., and Rollenhagen, K.: Ocean circulation and sea ice distribution in a
finite element global sea ice–ocean model, Ocean Model., 27, 114–129,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2008.10.009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2008.10.009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>Tseng, Y.-H., Bryan, F. O., and Whitney, M. M.: Impacts of the representation
of riverine freshwater input in the community earth system model, Ocean
Model., 105, 71–86, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2016.08.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2016.08.002</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Tsujino, H., Urakawa, S., Nakano, H., Small, R. J., Kim, W. M., Yeager, S. G., Danabasoglu, G., Suzuki, T., Bamber, J. L., Bentsen, M., Böning, C. W., Bozec, A., Chassignet, E. P., Curchitser, E., Boeira Dias, F., Durack, P. J., Griffies, S. M., Harada, Y., Ilicak, M., Josey, S. A., Kobayashi, C., Kobayashi, S., Komuro, Y., Large, W. G., Sommer, J. L., Marsland, S. J., Masina, S., Scheinert, M., Tomita, H., Valdivieso, M., and Yamazaki, D.: JRA-55 based surface dataset for driving ocean–sea-ice
models (JRA55-do), Ocean Model., 130, 79–139,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2018.07.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2018.07.002</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>Vialard, J. and Delecluse, P.: An OGCM study for the TOGA decade. Part I:
Role of salinity in the physics of the western Pacific fresh pool, J.
Phys. Oceanogr., 28, 1071–1088, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1998)028&lt;1071:AOSFTT&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1998)028&lt;1071:AOSFTT&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>,
1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>Vinaychandran, P., Murty, V. S. N., and Ramesh Babu, V.: Observations of
barrier layer formation in the Bay of Bengal during summer monsoon, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 107, 8018, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JC000831" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JC000831</a>, 2002.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>Volodin, E. M., Dianskii, N. A., and Gusev, A. V.: Simulating present-day
climate with the INMCM4.0 coupled model of the atmospheric and oceanic
general circulations, Izvestiya, Atmos. Ocean. Phys., 46,
414–431, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1134/S000143381004002X" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1134/S000143381004002X</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>Walker, N. D.: Satellite assessment of Mississippi River plume variability:
causes and predictability, Remote Sens. Environ., 58, 21–35,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(95)00259-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(95)00259-6</a>, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Ward, N. D., Megonigal, J. P., Bond-Lamberty, B., Bailey, V. L., Butman, D., Canuel, E. A., Diefenderfer, H., Ganju, N. K., Goñi, M. A., Graham, E. B., Hopkinson, C. S., Khangaonkar, T., Langley, J. A., McDowell, N. G., Myers-Pigg, A. N., Neumann, R. B., Osburn, C. L., Price, R. M., Rowland, J., Sengupta, A., Simard, M., Thornton, P. E., Tzortziou, M., Vargas, R., Weisenhorn, P. B., and Windham-Myers, L.: Representing the function
and sensitivity of coastal interfaces in Earth system models, Nat. Commun., 11, 2458,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16236-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16236-2</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
Willmott, C. J.: On the validation of models, Phys. Geogr., 2, 184–194,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02723646.1981.10642213" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02723646.1981.10642213</a>, 1981.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
Yankovsky, A. E. and Chapman D. C.: A Simple Theory for the Fate of Buoyant Coastal Discharges, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 27, 1386–1401, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;1386:ASTFTF&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;1386:ASTFTF&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Yueh, S. H., Tang, W., Fore, A. G., Neumann, G., Hayashi, A., Freedman, A.,
and Lagerloef, G. S. L-band passive and active microwave geophysical model
functions of ocean surface winds and applications to Aquarius retrieval,
IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 51, 4619–4632,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2013.2266915" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2013.2266915</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>
Yueh, S. H., Tang, W., Fore, A., Hayashi, A., Song, Y. T., and Lagerloef, G.:
Aquarius geophysical model function and combined active passive algorithm
for ocean surface salinity and wind retrieval, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 119, 5360–5379, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JC009939" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JC009939</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, H.: MITgcm model setup and output for “Improved representation of river runoff in ECCO simulations: implementation, evaluation, and impacts to coastal plume regions” [Data set], Zenodo, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4095613" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4095613</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, H., Menemenlis, D., and Fenty, G.: ECCO LLC270 ocean‐ice state estimate, available at: <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/119821" target="_blank"/> (last access: 29 March 2021), 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
