the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Influence of atmospheric variations in the polar stratosphere of the southern hemisphere during 2002–2022 on polar planetary wave activity
Abstract. Atmospheric planetary waves has long been studied, focusing on the equator and the middle and low latitudes. However, variation of polar planetary wave activity, especially temperature, temporal, and interannual variations of polar planetary waves, remain largely unexplored. In this study, we use MERRA-2 dataset to investigate the impact of atmospheric variations on polar planetary waves there during austral winter from 2002 to 2022. The temperature amplitude and wave periods of each polar planetary wave event were determined using 2-D least-squares fitting. Our results show that, as the zonal wavenumber increases, E1, E2, E3, and E4 occur earlier with weaker peak amplitudes and shorter wave periods. The phase velocities of E1, E2, E3 and E4 are similar to ~40 m/s in the polar atmosphere. In order to elucidate the variations in the observed polar planetary waves and its possible propagation and amplification mechanism, we carry out the diagnostic analyses with MERRA-2 reanalysis data from the surface up to ∼ 80 km. Results indicate that the polar planetary waves can be amplified in instability of the mesosphere ~50–60° S and the stratosphere ~70–80° S. The mean flow instability of the strong polar planetary wave during the austral winter mesosphere is greater than that of the weak wave. The selective generation, propagation, and amplification of planetary waves with varying zonal wavenumbers due to variations in background zonal winds in the polar atmosphere. The temperature amplitude of polar planetary wave correlates with solar activity F10.7. The correlation between zonal wavenumber, wave period, and phase velocity implies that polar planetary waves propagate as fixed-phase wave packets. These results can suggest that, the background atmospheric conditions in the polar regions play a crucial role in modulating the generation, propagation, and amplification of planetary waves. Overall, we analyze their dynamics variation of eastward planetary waves in the polar atmosphere during the 2002–2022 austral winter periods and statistically analyze the interannual variation.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(4371 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3121', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Feb 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3121/egusphere-2024-3121-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3121', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Mar 2025
In the current manuscript, Tang et al. have used MERRA2 reanalysis dataset
to diagnose the temperature/winds amplitude, phase, EP flux, refractive index to
investigate the planetary waves with zonal wavenumbers 1-4 (E1-E4).
They mainly focus on the stratosphere to mesosphere (from 20 km to 80 km) during the period from June to early October in the southern hemisphere.
First, the authors show the temerature amplitude/phase (zonal wavenumbers E1-E4) pattern at 50 km for 2002 (Figure 1)
where the peak altitudes occurring at different latitude bands (Figures 7-10).
Then they made histogram figures to show the characteristic of the planetary waves at 50 km in terms of their occuring date and amplitude (Figure 2-5) over 2002-2022.
Then they have shown their frequency (though I am not sure what the "count" actural meaning in their Figure 6,
but I guess that is the total number over 2002-2022 using 10 day windows ) and mean amplitude, period.
The authors have also tried to look at the differences in strong/weak (??) waves by seperarting the large/small of E1-E4 (Figure 7-10).
They also considered the difference of these structures for different cases (early/middle/late occurring date).
Finally the the authors looked at the response of planetary wave amplitude and phase velocity to solar activity using f10.7.
Overall, the current version seems to be a very comprehensive study.
However, it reads like that the authors just show their results using different thresholds but the readers could lose their interests because the current manuscript is lack of focus.
Sometimes there is even no explaination. For example, why the internannual variations in polar wave behavior are linked to F10.7 (Lines 810-811)?
Why E2 amplitude shows a negative correlation with solar activity?Some specifc comments:
1) Can you provide some information/references to show that MERRA2 or other reanalysis data has been successfully for studies of short period planetary waves especially with 1.3 and 1 day?
Based on the current version (Lines 114-118), it seems that it is only done by the lead author (Tang et a;., 2021) using MERRA2 but for 2019.2) Line 143, what do you mean "with particular focus on levels ranging from 9 to 15"?
3) Can you explain more about Line 151-153? Why using 10, 6, 4, 5 days time windows for E1-E4?
4) Line 182, which value of scale height is used? Not sure if it is still OK to use a fixed value of 7 (or 6.9) km for the upper stratosphere and mesosphere.
5) It looks the values in Table 1 are different as discribed in Section 3.1 for 2002.
6) I am quite surprised that the number of total events of E1 (107), E2 (99), E3 (74) and E4(69) are so close.
Can you check the other altitude (for example, 60 or 70km)?7) Some double structure of E1,E2,E3, E4 (one is around 50 km, the other is around 60 or 70km, Figure 7-11) need to give explaination.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3121-RC2 -
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3121', John Plane, 20 Mar 2025
The two referees have identified significant areas for improvement in the current version of the manuscript. This includes more quantitative analysis (including statistical tests) to support the qualitative conclusions in the paper. A substantial rewrite is also indicated. I therefore suggest that the authors withdraw the paper at this stage. If you feel that the substantial points made by the reviewers can be addressed satisfactorily and you do so in a new manuscript, then you may want to consider resubmitting the paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3121-EC1
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3121', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Feb 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3121/egusphere-2024-3121-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3121', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Mar 2025
In the current manuscript, Tang et al. have used MERRA2 reanalysis dataset
to diagnose the temperature/winds amplitude, phase, EP flux, refractive index to
investigate the planetary waves with zonal wavenumbers 1-4 (E1-E4).
They mainly focus on the stratosphere to mesosphere (from 20 km to 80 km) during the period from June to early October in the southern hemisphere.
First, the authors show the temerature amplitude/phase (zonal wavenumbers E1-E4) pattern at 50 km for 2002 (Figure 1)
where the peak altitudes occurring at different latitude bands (Figures 7-10).
Then they made histogram figures to show the characteristic of the planetary waves at 50 km in terms of their occuring date and amplitude (Figure 2-5) over 2002-2022.
Then they have shown their frequency (though I am not sure what the "count" actural meaning in their Figure 6,
but I guess that is the total number over 2002-2022 using 10 day windows ) and mean amplitude, period.
The authors have also tried to look at the differences in strong/weak (??) waves by seperarting the large/small of E1-E4 (Figure 7-10).
They also considered the difference of these structures for different cases (early/middle/late occurring date).
Finally the the authors looked at the response of planetary wave amplitude and phase velocity to solar activity using f10.7.
Overall, the current version seems to be a very comprehensive study.
However, it reads like that the authors just show their results using different thresholds but the readers could lose their interests because the current manuscript is lack of focus.
Sometimes there is even no explaination. For example, why the internannual variations in polar wave behavior are linked to F10.7 (Lines 810-811)?
Why E2 amplitude shows a negative correlation with solar activity?Some specifc comments:
1) Can you provide some information/references to show that MERRA2 or other reanalysis data has been successfully for studies of short period planetary waves especially with 1.3 and 1 day?
Based on the current version (Lines 114-118), it seems that it is only done by the lead author (Tang et a;., 2021) using MERRA2 but for 2019.2) Line 143, what do you mean "with particular focus on levels ranging from 9 to 15"?
3) Can you explain more about Line 151-153? Why using 10, 6, 4, 5 days time windows for E1-E4?
4) Line 182, which value of scale height is used? Not sure if it is still OK to use a fixed value of 7 (or 6.9) km for the upper stratosphere and mesosphere.
5) It looks the values in Table 1 are different as discribed in Section 3.1 for 2002.
6) I am quite surprised that the number of total events of E1 (107), E2 (99), E3 (74) and E4(69) are so close.
Can you check the other altitude (for example, 60 or 70km)?7) Some double structure of E1,E2,E3, E4 (one is around 50 km, the other is around 60 or 70km, Figure 7-11) need to give explaination.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3121-RC2 -
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3121', John Plane, 20 Mar 2025
The two referees have identified significant areas for improvement in the current version of the manuscript. This includes more quantitative analysis (including statistical tests) to support the qualitative conclusions in the paper. A substantial rewrite is also indicated. I therefore suggest that the authors withdraw the paper at this stage. If you feel that the substantial points made by the reviewers can be addressed satisfactorily and you do so in a new manuscript, then you may want to consider resubmitting the paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3121-EC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
187 | 37 | 14 | 238 | 18 | 13 |
- HTML: 187
- PDF: 37
- XML: 14
- Total: 238
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 94 | 40 |
China | 2 | 41 | 17 |
Germany | 3 | 11 | 4 |
United Kingdom | 4 | 9 | 3 |
France | 5 | 8 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 94