the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Exploring the Potential of Aerial and Balloon-Based Observations in the Study of Terrestrial Gamma Ray Flashes
Abstract. Recently presented measurements of Terrestrial Gamma Ray Flashes (TGF) above thunderstorms onboard aircraft and weather balloons introduce viable alternatives which could help to overcome limitations inherent in satellite-based observations, such as significant gamma ray attenuation by the atmosphere. This study explores the potential and implications of measuring TGFs using aircraft and weather balloons. Utilizing Monte Carlo simulations with the MCNP6 tool, the spatial distributions, fluences, and energy spectra of photons, electrons, and neutrons generated by TGFs are assessed at altitudes of 5 to 50 km. Results indicate that TGFs originating at lower altitudes produce narrower beams compared to those at higher altitudes, suggesting that weather balloons may be more effective for high-altitude TGFs, such as those associated with summer thunderstorms or thunderstorms in tropical regions. Whereas staffed aircraft might be more suitable for low altitude TGFs originating in temperate regions or in winter thunderstorms. Photon and electron energy spectra features, including maximum energy, and the presence of 511 keV photons, can help estimate the radial distance from the TGF axis. Expected photon fluences from TGFs range from 1 to 10,000 cm-2, with electron fluences ranging from 1 to 1,000 cm-2, depending on the TGF's brightness. Neutron fluences are notably lower, up to 10 cm-2. These findings underscore the potential of aerial and balloon-based measurements to provide critical insights into TGFs and their detection, addressing the limitations of current satellite observations.
- Preprint
(4267 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2789', Yuuki Wada, 14 Nov 2024
This manuscript includes a simulation study of terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs), one of the high-energy atmospheric phenomena associated with thunderstorms. TGFs have been detected by space-borne instruments, but recently, airborne observations of TGFs are becoming of greater importance. This study are aiming at verifying the detectability of TGF-related high-energy particles by airborne observations. The manuscript is well organized. On the other hand, I found that several important previous studies are completely missed, and furthermore, the obtained simulation results are not well exploited. Therefore, we recommend a major revision before the decision.
Major issues
There are previous simulation studies on high-energy atmospheric phenomena, and some of them should be cited. Furthermore, the present result should be compared to the previous studies in order to highlight the novelty of the present work. If comparison is impossible, the authors should justify it. I list the references below.
Electrons and photons:
- Pallu, M., Celestin, S., Hazem, Y., Trompier, F., & Patton, G. (2023). XStorm: A new gamma ray spectrometer for detection of close proximity gamma ray glows and TGFs. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 128, e2023JD039180. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JD039180
- Sarria, D., Østgaard, N., Marisaldi, M., Lehtinen, N., & Mezentsev, A. (2023). Library of simulated gamma-ray glows and application to previous airborne observations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 128, e2022JD037956. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037956 (This paper is for gamma-ray glows, but I think it is worth mentioning in the manuscript.)
- Sarria, D., Rutjes, C., Diniz, G., Luque, A., Ihaddadene, K. M. A., Dwyer, J. R., Østgaard, N., Skeltved, A. B., Ferreira, I. S., and Ebert, U.: Evaluation of Monte Carlo tools for high-energy atmospheric physics II: relativistic runaway electron avalanches, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 4515–4535, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4515-2018, 2018
- Rutjes, C., Sarria, D., Skeltved, A. B., Luque, A., Diniz, G., Østgaard, N., and Ebert, U.: Evaluation of Monte Carlo tools for high energy atmospheric physics, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3961–3974, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3961-2016, 2016
Neutrons
- Rutjes, C., Diniz, G., Ferreira, I. S., & Ebert, U. (2017). TGF afterglows: A new radiation mechanism from thunderstorms. Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 10,702–10,712. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075552
- Pablo G. Ortega (2020), Isotope production in thunderstorms, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 208, 105349, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2020.105349.
- Wada, Y., Enoto, T., Nakazawa, K., Odaka, H., Furuta, Y., & Tsuchiya, H. (2020). Photonuclear reactions in lightning: 1. Verification and modeling of reaction and propagation processes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033193. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033193
The authors show the simulation results of gamma rays, electrons, and neutrons by two-dimensional contours and energy spectra. In my opinion, however, the presentation is not enough, and further analysis is needed. For example, the authors claim that the distribution of gamma rays and electrons are different, but the difference is not obvious in the plots and I suggest the authors make a ratio plot of Figure 1 and Figure 3. If the authors would like to discuss the hardness ratio of the spectra, the hardness should be calculated and plotted.
Also, the main focus of this manuscript is the detectability of TGFs by airborne detectors. To clearly show the results aligning with this purpose, I suggest making figures to show the detectability of TGFs, with a function of TGF brightness (the initial number of electrons) and the effective area of a detector for each altitude and each particle type. See also Figure 23 in Pallu et al. 2023 (listed above).
Minor issues
- Some citations are not correctly formatted (for example, Fishman et al., 1994 at Line 16 in Page 1).
- L.77, P.3: Please check the citation (Oceanic and Administration, 2023)
- The authors use the primary electron spectrum obtained by Dwyer 2011, but I cannot find Dwyer 2011 in the reference list. Because the primary information is quite important in this study, I recommend showing the function of the energy spectrum or a plot.
- As MCNP6 is not widely used in this community (as far as I know), the authors should explain what physics is included in this code. Especially, the propagation process of electrons depends on the Monte-Carlo code, and its verification has been intensively performed by Rutjest et al. 2016 and Sarrial et al. 2018 (both are listed above). Also, the cross-section of photonuclear reactions is very important for neutron production and the authors should explain which database is used.
- L.100 P4: previouslz -> previously
- L.114, P.4: Citation is not correct.
- Figure 1: lowercase is used in the figure, but the caption uses uppercase.
- Figure 2 and the main text; the line feature at 511 keV should be carefully analyzed because the peak intensity of the line highly depends on the spectrum binning. Also, the authors discuss the important of the annihilation line, but the discussion remains qualitative. I recommend the authors qualitatively evaluate the intensity of the 511-keV line. The line intensity is often evaluated by equivalent width.
- Subsection 3.3: Are absorption processes of neutrons in the atmosphere included?
- L.180: recommend adding "currently"
- L.194, P.10: Tran15 -> Tran et al. 2015
- L.241, P.11: According to the policy of the journal, upon request is not favorable unless the authors have a reason. Please consider putting the raw data in a public repository. https://www.atmospheric-measurement-techniques.net/policies/data_policy.html
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2789-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marek Sommer, 17 Mar 2025
Dear Dr. Wada,
I would like to sincerely thank you for your detailed and insightful review. Your comments have been extremely valuable in improving the manuscript, and I truly appreciate the time and effort you put into providing such thorough feedback. I also learned a lot in the process, and I am grateful for your contributions to making this paper stronger.
In response to your comments, I have made the following key revisions:
- Comparisons with previous studies have been added wherever possible. In cases where direct comparison was not feasible, I have provided justifications.
- Several new figures have been included to better analyze and present the results.
- Instead of a ratio plot of Figures 1 and 3, I now show the distribution of gamma rays and electrons at two fixed altitudes, along with an electron-to-photon ratio plot, which provides a clearer visualization.
- A plot with normalized energy spectra has been added to better evaluate spectral hardness.
- Citations and typos have been corrected, including the formatting of the Oceanic and Administration citation.
- A plot of the initial spectrum of primary electrons has been included.
- A paragraph has been added describing the capabilities of MCNP6, including the specific libraries used.
- The equivalent width of the annihilation peak has been analyzed.
- The neutron absorption processes were included in the simulations.
- I will work on making the raw data publicly available as per the journal’s policy.
Beyond these specific revisions, the paper now contains much more new analysis and comparisons, allowing the results to be better evaluated and verified.
Once again, I truly appreciate your thoughtful and constructive review. Your feedback has significantly improved the manuscript, and I am grateful for your help in making it better.
Best regards,
Marek Sommer
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2789-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2789', Martino Marisaldi, 03 Dec 2024
This paper reports simulations of terrestrial gamma-ray flashes to assess the potential for observations at aircraft and balloon altitude.
In my opinion, the paper is not particularly novel, reproducing something which has already been extensively explored in the past two decades in many papers, especially concerning photons. However, the focus on aircraft and balloon observations is somehow timely, given the recent aircraft campaign results.
The simulations are carried out with NCMP, a simulation tool which, to my knowledge, has not been used in this field before. However, the authors do not compare quantitatively their results with what already published in literature, which casts criticism on the applicability of their results. In addition, although the paper is in general clearly written, there are some missing references and incomplete sentences that must be fixed.
In the end, I think that the paper can be published only after major revision. The main points to be addressed are reported in the following, and are further detailed in the comments in the annotated pdf.
Major comments:
- assumptions for the simulations. An electron vertical beam is considered, with a fluence larger than observed on average from space, and no intrinsic beam width is considered. I think that these assumptions do not reflect the true phenomenology of TGFs coming from observations, therefore limiting the applicability of the presented results.
- lack of comparison with previous results. The authors should compare quantitatively their results with available literature (ion particular the Hansen et al., 2013, paper concerning photons, the Dwyer paper concerning electrons, and the Carlson paper concerning neutrons), address and discuss the discrepancies.
- the recent ALOFT results from aircraft are published and should be discussed. I mean: Østgaard et al., 2024, Nature; Marisaldi et al., 2024, Nature, and Bjørge-Engeland et al., 2024, GRL.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Marek Sommer, 17 Mar 2025
Dear professor Marisaldi,
Thank you for your detailed and insightful review. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you invested in providing such constructive feedback. Your comments have been invaluable in refining and strengthening the paper.
In response to your concerns:
- I have now included quantitative comparisons with previous works, including Hansen et al. (2013) for photons, Dwyer for electrons, and Carlson for neutrons. These comparisons are discussed in detail to highlight agreements and discrepancies.
- I have expanded the discussion on beaming geometry, addressing the assumptions made in the simulations and how they compare to observed TGF characteristics.
- The recent ALOFT results (Østgaard et al., 2024; Marisaldi et al., 2024; Bjørge-Engeland et al., 2024) have now been cited and discussed where relevant.
- While previous studies have explored similar topics, I believe this work provides new insights and perspectives, particularly regarding aircraft and balloon observations, making it a timely contribution to the field.
Additionally, I have worked on improving the text based on your comments, ensuring better clarity and completeness. The revisions include both corrections and new discussions that further strengthen the paper.
Once again, I sincerely appreciate your thorough review. Your feedback has helped refine this work significantly, and I have learned a great deal from your suggestions.
Best regards,
Marek Sommer
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2789-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Marek Sommer, 17 Mar 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
206 | 90 | 106 | 402 | 11 | 13 |
- HTML: 206
- PDF: 90
- XML: 106
- Total: 402
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 157 | 40 |
Czech Republic | 2 | 37 | 9 |
China | 3 | 19 | 4 |
France | 4 | 18 | 4 |
Sweden | 5 | 12 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 157