the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 24 Oct 2023
Quasi-10-day wave activity in the southern high-latitude MLT region and its relation to the large-scale instability and gravity wave drag
Abstract. Seasonal variation of westward-propagating quasi-10-day wave (Q10DW) in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere of the Southern Hemisphere (SH) high-latitude regions is investigated using meteor radar (MR) observations for the period of 2012–2016 and Specified Dynamics (SD) version of the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM). The phase difference of meridional winds measured by two MRs located in Antarctica gives observational estimates of the amplitude and phase of Q10DW with zonal wavenumber 1 (W1). The amplitude of the observed Q10DW-W1 is large around equinoxes. In order to elucidate the variations of the observed Q10DW-W1 and its possible amplification mechanism, we carry out two SD-WACCM experiments nudged towards the MERRA-2 reanalysis from the surface up to ~60 km (EXP60) and ~75 km (EXP75). Results of the EXP75 indicate that the observed Q10DW-W1 can be amplified around the barotropic/baroclinic instability regions in the middle mesosphere around 60° S–70° S. In the EXP60, it is also found that Q10DW-W1 is amplified around the instability regions, but the amplitude is too large compared with MR observations. The large-scale instability in the EXP60 in the SH summer mesosphere is stronger than that in the EXP75 and Microwave Limb Sounder observation. The larger instability in the EXP60 is related to the large meridional and vertical variations of polar mesospheric zonal winds in associated with gravity wave parameterization (GWP). Given uncertainties inherent in GWP, these results can suggest that it is possible for models to spuriously generate traveling planetary waves such as Q10DW, especially in summer, due to the excessively strong large-scale instability in the SH high-latitude mesosphere.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1698 KB)
-
Supplement
(6069 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1698 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6069 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2381', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Nov 2023
This study examines the generation and propagation of 10-day waves in the southern hemisphere upper atmosphere, using observations from meteor radar winds at two Antarctic stations, with supporting data from SD-WACCM simulations and MLS data. The main conclusion of this study is the identification of regions of barotropic/baroclinic instability in the upper mesosphere and lower thermosphere that can generate such oscillations.
I have several reservations about this study and at the moment I cannot recommend it for publication. I recommend the authors take a look at published works that compare meteor radar wind observations and model dynamics to become more familiar with state of the art. Start here: doi 10.1029/2021JA030177.
Major comments:
- The main conclusion of the study is not new. The authors have ignored existing literature which offers corroborating or alternative investigations: doi 10.1002/grl.50373, 1016/j.asr.2022.10.054, 10.1029/2019JD031599 and 10.1016/j.jastp.2014.06.009, and many others published since Chandran’s study.
- MERRA-2 is scientifically valid up to 60 km, the uppermost altitude where MLS data is used. Above 60 km and all the way to the lid (~75 km), it is just a sponge layer. Thus, I cannot associate any usefulness to the EXP75 presented in this study, where SD-WACCM is nudged with MERRA-2 fields all the way to MERRA-2 lid: it is like nudging a model with another model. Certainly, EXP60 is more useful but it is discussed only in terms of a difference from the EXP75 and briefly. If the goal of doing this study was to compare two simulations with higher and lower nudging fields, the authors should then be aware of these extant studies: doi 10.1002/2017JD027782, or 10.1002/2015GL065838.
- MLS data is used in the data assimilation of MERRA-2. I find it odd to attempt to validate the model results that are nudged to MERRA-2 with a dataset that is part of the data assimilation cycle. In other words, an independent data set ought to be used. Why not SABER?
- The authors identify the occurrence of a 10-day normal mode from the symmetric behavior of MLS geostrophic winds. That is not sufficient: the amplitude structure has nodes, and the phase is expected to be in a specific configuration in order to be 10-day free oscillation. See: DOI: 10.1175/JAS-D-11-0103.1, 10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00257.x, and the Salby’s papers already cited.
Minor comments:
Line 38-41: Normal modes or traveling PWs? If the former, normal modes by definition do not exchange momentum or energy with the background zonal flow.
Figure 1. I don’t understand how the averaged field (bottom panel) shows an overall minimum in April when 2015 has a pronounced amplitude peak. Are data in the shaded regions removed before averaging?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2381-RC1 - CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wonseok Lee, 15 Nov 2023
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', In-Sun Song, 16 Nov 2023
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', In-Sun Song, 03 Jan 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2381', Yosuke Yamazaki, 19 Nov 2023
Comments on "Quasi-10-day wave activity in the southern high-latitude MLT region and its relation to the large-scale instability and gravity wave drag" by Lee et al.
Reviewed by Yosuke Yamazaki, Leibniz Institut of Atmospheric Physics, University of Rostock
This study focuses on the westward-propagating quasi-10-day wave (Q10DW) in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere of the Southern Hemisphere as observed by meteor radars and simulated by the WACCM model. Two WACCM simulations were used, in one of which the model was constrained by the MERRA-2 reanalysis from the surface up to 75 km (EXP75), and in the other simulation the model was constrained similarly but up to 60 km (EXP60). After showing qualitative agreement between the Q10DWs in the meteor radar observations and EXP75 simulation, the authors examined the cause of Q10DW for selected events, and demonstrated that the barotropic/baroclinic instability played a leading role. The authors also compared the Q10DWs in EXP75 and EXP60, and noted that the wave amplitude is generally greater in EXP60. They concluded that the difference resulted from the background atmosphere that is largely controlled by gravity-wave parameterization.
The new findings are the sensitivity of Q10DW to the nudging range adopted in model simulations and the importance of gravity-wave drag in it. I do not have an objection for this paper to be published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. However, I feel that the paper could benefit from some revisions. My specific comments can be found below.
Major comments:
1. Model-data comparison
Figures 1 and 2 show the Q10DW from meteor radars and WACCM EXP75 simulation, respectively. The disagreement is profound. The patterns of intra-annual variations are different. Also, the wave amplitudes are different by a factor of 3 or so. This makes me wonder whether the radar analysis technique has been properly applied. If yes, and if the discrepancy between the data and simulation exceeds the uncertainties in the radar results, are the simulation results still a good representation of Q10DW? How do the WACCM results compare with the MLS results? It is easier to derive Q10DW using satellite data than radar data. If there is good agreement between the WACCM and MLS results, it would make more sense to present the MLS results instead of the radar results.2. EXP60 vs EXP75
It is stated that the amplitude of Q10DW in EXP60 is excessive (in Abstract and Summary). However, I do not see evidence to support this statement. Looking at Figures 1, 2 and S2, the amplitude of Q10DW is too small in both EXP75 and EXP60. It is difficult to say which reproduces the observations (Figure 1) better. Again, comparisons with the MLS results might help.3. Introduction
The paragraph starting at l. 65 highlights recent studies on Q10DW. It feels that there are many studies that the authors overlooked especially in the context of the Q10DW response to sudden stratospheric warmings (e.g., Matthias et al., 2012; Yamazaki & Matthias, 2019; He et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2022; Yin et al., 2023). It is important to address them, because some of them performed a similar analysis as the authors did in this paper and identified the importance of the barotropic/baroclinic instability.Matthias et al. (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2012.04.004
He et al. (2020) https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091453
Qin et al. (2022) https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037730
Yin et al. (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.10.054
--- only those which are currently not cited ---Minor comments:
4. l. 62 "modulate the periods of tides"
Periods of tides would not change, as tides are defined by their periods (24h, 12h, 8h, etc.) The amplitude of tidal waves can undergo an apparent modulation due to the presence of secondary waves arising from the nonlinear interaction between planetary waves and tides.Recommended reading
Miyoshi & Yamazaki (2020) https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA0282835. l. 72 "high-latitude mesosphere and lower thermosphere"
How did they find large Q10DW in the high-latitude region while their data are limited within +/-50 latitude?6. l. 94 "the amplification mechanism of Q10DW-W1 still has not been investigated"
It may be clarified that this is about the seasonal amplification during equinoxes. As mentioned earlier, the amplification mechanism of Q10DW during sudden stratospheric warmings has been addressed in previous studies.7. Figure 1
It would be informative if the geographical coordinates of the radars are mentioned in the figure caption.8. l. 392 "F/sgn(A)" (also at l. 473)
What is "sgn"?9. l. 427 "6 April 2015 case"
Unlike the other events, the wave propagation is poleward in the stratosphere. This is a Q10DW event during a final warming event (Yamazaki & Matthias, 2019; Qin et al., 2022). Qin et al. (2022) discussed that the inter-hemispheric propagation of the wave from the Northern Hemisphere was possible because of the phase of the quasi-biennial oscillation.10. l. 432 "divergent"
It should be "divergence".11. l. 463 "s>=20"
It is strange that only GWs with high zonal wavenumbers are resolved. Maybe "s<=20"?12. l. 483 "February and November"
Which year?13. l. 484 "February and November are chosen because ..."
The justification is weak. It would make more sense to select the events that are examined in Figure 4, where the Q10DWs are not only substantial in amplitude but also in qualitative agreement with observations.14. Summary
I do not see the merit of listing items here (#1-#6). #2 and #5 are not the description of results but the description of what the authors did to get the results.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2381-RC2 - AC3: 'Reply on RC2', In-Sun Song, 03 Jan 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2381', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Nov 2023
This study examines the generation and propagation of 10-day waves in the southern hemisphere upper atmosphere, using observations from meteor radar winds at two Antarctic stations, with supporting data from SD-WACCM simulations and MLS data. The main conclusion of this study is the identification of regions of barotropic/baroclinic instability in the upper mesosphere and lower thermosphere that can generate such oscillations.
I have several reservations about this study and at the moment I cannot recommend it for publication. I recommend the authors take a look at published works that compare meteor radar wind observations and model dynamics to become more familiar with state of the art. Start here: doi 10.1029/2021JA030177.
Major comments:
- The main conclusion of the study is not new. The authors have ignored existing literature which offers corroborating or alternative investigations: doi 10.1002/grl.50373, 1016/j.asr.2022.10.054, 10.1029/2019JD031599 and 10.1016/j.jastp.2014.06.009, and many others published since Chandran’s study.
- MERRA-2 is scientifically valid up to 60 km, the uppermost altitude where MLS data is used. Above 60 km and all the way to the lid (~75 km), it is just a sponge layer. Thus, I cannot associate any usefulness to the EXP75 presented in this study, where SD-WACCM is nudged with MERRA-2 fields all the way to MERRA-2 lid: it is like nudging a model with another model. Certainly, EXP60 is more useful but it is discussed only in terms of a difference from the EXP75 and briefly. If the goal of doing this study was to compare two simulations with higher and lower nudging fields, the authors should then be aware of these extant studies: doi 10.1002/2017JD027782, or 10.1002/2015GL065838.
- MLS data is used in the data assimilation of MERRA-2. I find it odd to attempt to validate the model results that are nudged to MERRA-2 with a dataset that is part of the data assimilation cycle. In other words, an independent data set ought to be used. Why not SABER?
- The authors identify the occurrence of a 10-day normal mode from the symmetric behavior of MLS geostrophic winds. That is not sufficient: the amplitude structure has nodes, and the phase is expected to be in a specific configuration in order to be 10-day free oscillation. See: DOI: 10.1175/JAS-D-11-0103.1, 10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00257.x, and the Salby’s papers already cited.
Minor comments:
Line 38-41: Normal modes or traveling PWs? If the former, normal modes by definition do not exchange momentum or energy with the background zonal flow.
Figure 1. I don’t understand how the averaged field (bottom panel) shows an overall minimum in April when 2015 has a pronounced amplitude peak. Are data in the shaded regions removed before averaging?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2381-RC1 - CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wonseok Lee, 15 Nov 2023
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', In-Sun Song, 16 Nov 2023
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', In-Sun Song, 03 Jan 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2381', Yosuke Yamazaki, 19 Nov 2023
Comments on "Quasi-10-day wave activity in the southern high-latitude MLT region and its relation to the large-scale instability and gravity wave drag" by Lee et al.
Reviewed by Yosuke Yamazaki, Leibniz Institut of Atmospheric Physics, University of Rostock
This study focuses on the westward-propagating quasi-10-day wave (Q10DW) in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere of the Southern Hemisphere as observed by meteor radars and simulated by the WACCM model. Two WACCM simulations were used, in one of which the model was constrained by the MERRA-2 reanalysis from the surface up to 75 km (EXP75), and in the other simulation the model was constrained similarly but up to 60 km (EXP60). After showing qualitative agreement between the Q10DWs in the meteor radar observations and EXP75 simulation, the authors examined the cause of Q10DW for selected events, and demonstrated that the barotropic/baroclinic instability played a leading role. The authors also compared the Q10DWs in EXP75 and EXP60, and noted that the wave amplitude is generally greater in EXP60. They concluded that the difference resulted from the background atmosphere that is largely controlled by gravity-wave parameterization.
The new findings are the sensitivity of Q10DW to the nudging range adopted in model simulations and the importance of gravity-wave drag in it. I do not have an objection for this paper to be published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. However, I feel that the paper could benefit from some revisions. My specific comments can be found below.
Major comments:
1. Model-data comparison
Figures 1 and 2 show the Q10DW from meteor radars and WACCM EXP75 simulation, respectively. The disagreement is profound. The patterns of intra-annual variations are different. Also, the wave amplitudes are different by a factor of 3 or so. This makes me wonder whether the radar analysis technique has been properly applied. If yes, and if the discrepancy between the data and simulation exceeds the uncertainties in the radar results, are the simulation results still a good representation of Q10DW? How do the WACCM results compare with the MLS results? It is easier to derive Q10DW using satellite data than radar data. If there is good agreement between the WACCM and MLS results, it would make more sense to present the MLS results instead of the radar results.2. EXP60 vs EXP75
It is stated that the amplitude of Q10DW in EXP60 is excessive (in Abstract and Summary). However, I do not see evidence to support this statement. Looking at Figures 1, 2 and S2, the amplitude of Q10DW is too small in both EXP75 and EXP60. It is difficult to say which reproduces the observations (Figure 1) better. Again, comparisons with the MLS results might help.3. Introduction
The paragraph starting at l. 65 highlights recent studies on Q10DW. It feels that there are many studies that the authors overlooked especially in the context of the Q10DW response to sudden stratospheric warmings (e.g., Matthias et al., 2012; Yamazaki & Matthias, 2019; He et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2022; Yin et al., 2023). It is important to address them, because some of them performed a similar analysis as the authors did in this paper and identified the importance of the barotropic/baroclinic instability.Matthias et al. (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2012.04.004
He et al. (2020) https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091453
Qin et al. (2022) https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037730
Yin et al. (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.10.054
--- only those which are currently not cited ---Minor comments:
4. l. 62 "modulate the periods of tides"
Periods of tides would not change, as tides are defined by their periods (24h, 12h, 8h, etc.) The amplitude of tidal waves can undergo an apparent modulation due to the presence of secondary waves arising from the nonlinear interaction between planetary waves and tides.Recommended reading
Miyoshi & Yamazaki (2020) https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA0282835. l. 72 "high-latitude mesosphere and lower thermosphere"
How did they find large Q10DW in the high-latitude region while their data are limited within +/-50 latitude?6. l. 94 "the amplification mechanism of Q10DW-W1 still has not been investigated"
It may be clarified that this is about the seasonal amplification during equinoxes. As mentioned earlier, the amplification mechanism of Q10DW during sudden stratospheric warmings has been addressed in previous studies.7. Figure 1
It would be informative if the geographical coordinates of the radars are mentioned in the figure caption.8. l. 392 "F/sgn(A)" (also at l. 473)
What is "sgn"?9. l. 427 "6 April 2015 case"
Unlike the other events, the wave propagation is poleward in the stratosphere. This is a Q10DW event during a final warming event (Yamazaki & Matthias, 2019; Qin et al., 2022). Qin et al. (2022) discussed that the inter-hemispheric propagation of the wave from the Northern Hemisphere was possible because of the phase of the quasi-biennial oscillation.10. l. 432 "divergent"
It should be "divergence".11. l. 463 "s>=20"
It is strange that only GWs with high zonal wavenumbers are resolved. Maybe "s<=20"?12. l. 483 "February and November"
Which year?13. l. 484 "February and November are chosen because ..."
The justification is weak. It would make more sense to select the events that are examined in Figure 4, where the Q10DWs are not only substantial in amplitude but also in qualitative agreement with observations.14. Summary
I do not see the merit of listing items here (#1-#6). #2 and #5 are not the description of results but the description of what the authors did to get the results.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2381-RC2 - AC3: 'Reply on RC2', In-Sun Song, 03 Jan 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Davis Station meteor radar Australian Antarctic Data Centre https://data.aad.gov.au/metadata/records/Davis_33MHz_Meteor_Radar
King Sejong Station meteor radar Korea Polar Data Center https://kpdc.kopri.re.kr
NASA’s EOS Aura/MLS GPH data Goddard Earth Science Data and Information Services Center https://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov
Atmospheric forcing data for specified dynamics NCAR Research Data Archive https://rda.ucar.edu
Model code and software
Community Earth System Model 2 National Center for Atmospheric Research https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 223 | 87 | 19 | 329 | 22 | 11 | 9 |
- HTML: 223
- PDF: 87
- XML: 19
- Total: 329
- Supplement: 22
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 90 | 28 |
| South Korea | 2 | 81 | 25 |
| China | 3 | 32 | 10 |
| Germany | 4 | 22 | 6 |
| India | 5 | 14 | 4 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 90
Wonseok Lee
Byeong-Gwon Song
Yong Ha Kim
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1698 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6069 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper