the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Simulated Long-term Evolution of the Thermosphere during the Holocene: 1. Neutral Density and Temperature
Yihui Cai
Xinan Yue
Zhipeng Ren
Yongxin Pan
Abstract. In the previous work of Yue et al. (2022), the ionospheric evolution during the Holocene (9455 BC to 2015 AD) was comprehensively and carefully investigated for the first time using the Global Coupled Ionosphere-Thermosphere-Electrodynamics Model developed at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (GCITEM-IGGCAS), driven by realistic geomagnetic fields, CO2 levels, and solar activity derived from the ancient media records and modern measurements. In this study, we further quantify the effects of the three drivers on thermospheric neutral density and temperature variations during the Holocene. We find that the oscillations of solar activity contribute more than 80 % of the thermospheric variability, while either CO2 or the geomagnetic field contributes less than 10 %. The effect of CO2 on the global mean neutral density and temperature is comparable to that of the geomagnetic field throughout the Holocene but is more significant after 1800 AD. In addition, thermospheric density and temperature show approximately linear variations with the dipole moment of the geomagnetic field, CO2, and F10.7, with only the linear growth rate associated with the geomagnetic field varying significantly in universal time and latitude. The increasing dipole moment and CO2 cool and contract the thermosphere, while solar activity has the opposite effect. The higher the altitude, the greater the influence of the three factors on the thermosphere. Different factors produce different seasonal variations in thermosphere changes. Furthermore, we predict that a 400 ppm increase in CO2 will result in a 50–70 % and 84–114 K reduction in global mean neutral density and temperature, respectively, which should directly affect the orbit and lifetime of spacecraft and space debris.
Yihui Cai et al.
Status: open (until 07 Apr 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-233', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Feb 2023
reply
This is interesting and useful article, which deserves publication after minor revision. This article reports for the first time simulation of climatic changes in the upper atmosphere over the whole Holocene.
Comments:
I would like to see comparison of results of authors with the results of Qian et al. (2021, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA029067) over the 1960s – 2010s.
Lines 136 and 137: Both weakening (line 136) and increase (line 137) of dipole moment make increase of neutral density???
Wording and misprints:
- Line 47: delete comma – “concentrations,” should be “concentration”
- Line 58: delete “in detail” – claim that you understand the evolution over 10,000 years is too strong; you report only the first simulation, which does not include motion of magnetic poles (at present important factor)
- Line 65: “as Yue” should be “as that used by Yue”
- “1990” – 1990 or 1900?
- Line 77: delete “that”
- Line 117: “(Afraimovich et al., 2008)” should be “Afraimovich et al. (2008)”
- Line 121: “clear” – better is “clearly visible”
- Lines 204 and 206: “greater” should be “larger”
- Line 213: “an altitude” should be “altitude”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-233-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-233', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Mar 2023
reply
This work (Simulated Long-term Evolution of the Thermosphere during the Holocene: 1. Neutral Density and Temperature) presents new and interesting results regarding the paleo-thermosphere, linked to a previous work of the authors (Simulated Long‐Term Evolution of the Ionosphere During the Holocene). The research on long-term trends, as this one which considers in particular the Earth’s magnetic field , the CO2 concentration increase, and solar activity variation as possible sources, are always welcome in the community that studies climate change and trends throughout the atmosphere.
I consider that this work can be accepted for publication after minor revisions.
My main comments are:
(1) The thermosphere variation (temperature and density in this case) which responds to solar activity variation has a timescale of 10 to 11 years, while the variations linked to CO2 increase and/or Earth's magnetic field variation have a timescale of around 100 years. If you consider solar activity variation of the same timescale you have for example, the Gleissberg cycel, whose amplitude is much much weaker than the quasi- decadal variation.
I think that this is the change in solar activity which would be interesting to compare with the variations linked to CO2 and the geomagnetic field variations. Since at these time scales I am quite sure they will be all comparable. You have even the Suess-cycle in solar activity to consider also.
I consider that the 80% variation in the thermosphere due to the solar activity quasi-decadal cycle is already well known and also that it is a dominant variabillity in the case of inter-annual varaibility.
Anyway I consider also important the comparison of all the forcings anaylzed by the authors, even with the solar activity timescale of variation much different than that of the other forcings.
(2) In figures 3 and 4 it is evident that in the last 2000 years the density and temperature variations due to Earth's magnetic field in the magnetic pole regions are opposite. In a pure dipolar field this should not happen, so I guess this is due to the multipolar components of the field (see for example Zossi et al. (2020). Geomagnetic field model indicates shrinking northern auroral oval. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027434. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027434). This is reasonable since as time passes, and the dipolar component decreases, the Earth's field is less and less dipolar. So the symmetry between northern and southern hemisphere should also decrease.
Could the opposite behavior along the last ~2000 years, or so, be related in your case also to the radial component of the field which, due to the multipolar components for example, is increasing in the northern hemisphere and decreasing in the south ?
Although, I think that this should lead to lower temperature in the northern pole and higher at the south. Which is opposite to your results.
Maybe I am wrong with this reasining, but if not, I woule like the author to comment on this possibility.
(3) In Figure 8, why are there differences between the two panels ? Is the panel which shows the varaibility with UT for a fixed longitude or a zonal mean ?
Minor comments:
(1) In line 49: "A et al., 2012" is may be "Ridley et al., 2012) ?? But I am not shure. Please check.
(2) Line 259: " Only the effect of the geomagnetic field is strongly dependent on the universal time and geographical location, and the weakening of the dipole moment leading to an increase in Joule heating in the polar region thus make the thermosphere change more than the effect of CO2. Overall, the higher altitude, the larger the effect of the three drivers on the neutral density and temperature."
After the word more, in my opinion it lacks a word. For example "more intense" or "stronger".
In the second sentence I would write: " Overall, the higher the altitude, ..."
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-233-RC2
Yihui Cai et al.
Yihui Cai et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
148 | 42 | 10 | 200 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 148
- PDF: 42
- XML: 10
- Total: 200
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1