the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Influence of atmospheric waves and deep convection on water vapour in the equatorial lower stratosphere seen from long-duration balloon measurements
Abstract. The STRATEOLE 2 project consists of 3 campaigns of stratospheric superpressure balloons released from the Seychelles and intended to fly over the equatorial belt transported by winds during 3 to 4 months. During the two campaigns which have already been carried out, (2019/2020 and 2021/2022) five Pico-STRAT Bi Gaz spectrometers have been released in order to measure in situ water vapour, methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) around 18.5 km and 20.5 km. In this paper, we have developed a methodology based on the calculation of in situ water vapour and temperature anomalies to estimate the modulation of water vapour due to atmospheric waves and deep convection. The calculation of Pearson correlation coefficient is performed between averaged ERA5 reanalysis temperatures and in situ water vapour anomalies. In case of a monotonic vertical gradient of water vapour, the absolute value of the Pearson’s r is high (typically 0.65) when atmospheric waves are a predominant factor of modulation. This is the case for the flight C0_05_TTL2. In case of other flights, we notice a decrease of the Pearson’s r absolute value which can be explained by the change in time of the vertical gradient of water vapour, and large convective systems with turrets overshooting the tropopause. This is the case for the flight C1_15_TTL4 which flew over the Rai typhoon (Pearson’s r of 0,31 due to both contributions).
- Preprint
(2688 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 19 Dec 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3249', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Dec 2024
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3249/egusphere-2024-3249-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3249', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Dec 2024
reply
Carbone et al. provide a study where they relate water vapor distribution with wave activity and deep convection. They employ super pressure balloons observations to give unique insights on the influence of tropical waves and deep convection on stratospheric water vapor. In their study they identify one flight with clear indication of water vapor modulation of waves, while the influence of deep convection is analyzed on the example of typhoon Rai. The paper is well organized, and the science is novel and after a few clarifications worthy of publication. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the manuscript and mostly have technical comments to improve readability.
Main comments:
Line 76f: The sentence does not make sense at the moment. Please rephrase.
Line 85: “Water vapor anomalies…” this sentence needs to be moved to the methods section
Line 103f: I would suggest rephrasing the sentence to: once at float level, the balloons drift with the wind either east- or westward depending on the QBO phase.
Line 111: what does "has evolved in the wet phase" mean?
Line 365-369: I don't fully understand the reasoning here. Why are the VGWV variations reflected in the correlation coefficients? The VGWV for C1_03_TTL4 and C1_07_TTL4 are similar, however the correlations are very different (from no correlation at all to 0.39).
Also I would be interested in why there is no correlation for C1_07_TTL4 balloon? How far apart were these balloons? In other words, why does one balloon show a correlation signal and the other does not? Are they geographically far apart? Where they flying through different convective systems?
Line 395: Please rephrase the sentences: what does "... flight has evolved almost half the time for each phase..." mean?
Line 398ff: I'm surprised. C1_15_TTL4 has a lower correlation coefficient in Table 2 and yet almost half the time influenced by waves if I understand correctly. So I would expect the same if not more for C1_03_TTL4. Do you have an explanation for that difference?
Line 510: I did not understand the last half of the sentence. Please rephrase. What does “… system anvil is compatible with overshoot within it” mean?
Figure 6: I would suggest to zoom into this plot and have the top at 50hPa that way it is easier to see the variation of Pico-STRAT Bi Gaz observations. Also the inversion is an important feature and therefore I would suggest to highlight it in the figure.
Figure 7: Some of the circles are difficult to see, I would suggest to make them bigger.
Figure 10: It’s impossible to follow the discussion of this figure as you can only see black dots. Maybe work with different transparencies? Description of black dots is missing in the figure caption.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3249-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
126 | 25 | 8 | 159 | 3 | 2 |
- HTML: 126
- PDF: 25
- XML: 8
- Total: 159
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1