the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Gobal and regional chemical influence of sprites: Reconciling modeling results and measurements
Abstract. Mesospheric electrical discharges, known as sprites, formed by fast-propagating streamers, have been shown to create localized enhancements of atmospheric constituents such as N, O, NOx, N2O, and HOx, as indicated by both, modeling results and space-based measurements. In this study, we incorporate the occurrence rate of sprites into a chemistry-climate model using meteorological parameters as a proxy. Additionally, we introduce the injection of chemical species by sprites into the model, based on electrodynamical modeling of individual sprite streamers and observations from space.
Our modeling results show a good agreement between the simulated sprite distribution and observed data on a global scale. While the global influence of sprites on the atmospheric chemistry is found to be negligible, our findings reveal their measurable chemical influence at regional scale, particularly for the concentration of HNO3 and HNO4 within the mesosphere. The simulations also suggest that sprites could be responsible for the observed NO2 anomalies at an altitude of 52 km above thunderstorms, as reported by MIPAS. Finally, a projected simulation reveals that the occurrence rate of sprites could increase at a rate of 14 % per 1 K rise in the global temperature.
-
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
(15030 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(15030 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2403', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Nov 2023
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Francisco Javier Perez-Invernon, 01 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2403', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Nov 2023
The paper presents new and interesting results on the global chemical effects of sprites. It is well written and focused. It addresses relevant scientific questions within the scope of ACP, and deserves to be published. For the final revision, I’d like to ask the authors to take into consideration these points:
Line 132: Please comment on the ratio of LCC-flashes to all flashes. How does your 20% relate to the 1/1000 sprite-to-flash estimate by Arnone et al. (2014)?
Table 1 states ‘SPRI-M … HOx by Malagón-Romero et al (2023)’ Are there HOx production estimates in that paper? If so, please give numbers like for the cases Yamada et al. / Winkler et al.. If not, please correct the reference.
Line 144: As far as I see, that wasn’t an ‘electrodynamic’ model?
Line 154: After ‘single sprite’ add ‘streamer’.
Section 3.2: Please compare your results to the model results of Arnone et al. (2014).
Figure 6 caption: ‘globally averaged’ might be wrong.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2403-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Francisco Javier Perez-Invernon, 01 Feb 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2403', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Nov 2023
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Francisco Javier Perez-Invernon, 01 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2403', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Nov 2023
The paper presents new and interesting results on the global chemical effects of sprites. It is well written and focused. It addresses relevant scientific questions within the scope of ACP, and deserves to be published. For the final revision, I’d like to ask the authors to take into consideration these points:
Line 132: Please comment on the ratio of LCC-flashes to all flashes. How does your 20% relate to the 1/1000 sprite-to-flash estimate by Arnone et al. (2014)?
Table 1 states ‘SPRI-M … HOx by Malagón-Romero et al (2023)’ Are there HOx production estimates in that paper? If so, please give numbers like for the cases Yamada et al. / Winkler et al.. If not, please correct the reference.
Line 144: As far as I see, that wasn’t an ‘electrodynamic’ model?
Line 154: After ‘single sprite’ add ‘streamer’.
Section 3.2: Please compare your results to the model results of Arnone et al. (2014).
Figure 6 caption: ‘globally averaged’ might be wrong.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2403-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Francisco Javier Perez-Invernon, 01 Feb 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Monthly averaged sprite and chemical data extracted from EMAC simulations including sprites (T42L90MA resolution) F. J. Pérez-Invernón, F. J. Gordillo-Vázquez, A. Malagón-Romero, and P. Jöckel https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8388218
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
199 | 71 | 17 | 287 | 12 | 11 |
- HTML: 199
- PDF: 71
- XML: 17
- Total: 287
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Francisco J. Pérez-Invernón
Francisco J. Gordillo-Vázquez
Alejandro Malagón-Romero
Patrick Jöckel
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(15030 KB) - Metadata XML