the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Greenland’s Topography Triggers Cyclogenesis: Synergy between Lee Cyclogenesis and Jet Streak
Abstract. Arctic cyclones play a crucial role in shaping Arctic weather patterns and influencing sea ice concentrations. Notably, lee cyclogenesis—typically associated with large topographic barriers—has not been observed on the lee side of Greenland, despite its dominance as the Arctic’s largest terrain feature. During the MOSAiC expedition in April 2020, an Arctic cyclone was observed at the leeside of Greenland, prompting our hypothesis that lee cyclogenesis contributed significantly to its development.
To test this hypothesis, we conducted simulations with modified Greenland topography. The results confirm that lee cyclogenesis does occur and significantly enhances cyclone intensity. Notably, even when lee cyclogenesis is absent, the jet streak alone sustains cyclone development, suggesting that in this case, both mechanisms—lee cyclogenesis and the jet streak—collectively drive cyclogenesis.
Further analysis reveals the quasi-barotropic nature of lee cyclogenesis. Once the cyclone moves away from Greenland, lee cyclogenesis weakens markedly in the lower troposphere. However, the upper-tropospheric low vortex—induced by orographic forcing—persists, sustaining the cyclone until its dissipation in the central Arctic four days later. This suggests that orographic forcing has a prolonged impact in the upper troposphere. Our findings provide new insights into the mechanisms governing polar cyclone development.
- Preprint
(1837 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1392', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Apr 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1392', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2025
This study investigates the combined role of Greenland topography and the jet streak in the development and evolution of a cyclone observed during the MOSAiC campaign by means of numerical simulations of the event. The author concludes that the influence of both the jet streak and Lee Cyclogenesis are relevant during the development of the cyclone, while the effects of the Lee Cyclogenesis on the upper troposphere dominate in the later stage.
The study addresses a relevant question, but the methodology is not adequately explained and does not provide all the details that would allow the simulations to be reproduced. In addition, the analysis of the results does not explore in detail the mechanisms leading to the reported results, and the contextualization of the study requires a deeper literature review, while some of the statements on the novelty of this study should be tempered. Therefore, I recommend major revisions to solve all these issues.
Specific comments:
L15-16: Lee Cyclogenesis...has not been observed: Is the author referring to observations or to a lack of studies on this subject. In either case, I suggest doing an extensive literature review and changing this sentence if it is not accurate.
Abstract, second paragraph: It should be stated more clearly that this study only investigates a single event.
L57: Same comment as in L15-16.
L71-72: It would be useful to refer to a figure that includes the domain used in the simulations with the actual topography.
L72-74: some relevant information is missing for the 10-km runs (e.g. parameterizations) and there is no information on the global model runs used to provide initial and boundary conditions.
L79: Is the topography only removed in the 10-km simulation? Is there any additional modification required to run the simulation with removed topography?
L81: How is the nudging implemented and what are the differences between the areas with and without nudging with respect to the driving global run?
Section 3: Before discussing the results of the numerical simulations it would be interesting to the evolution of the observed cyclone and give an estimate on how accurately the numerical simulation reproduces the cyclone genesis and evolution.
Eqs. 1-6: I suggest including a table with all the definitions and avoid repeating the meaning of LC, SP, etc.
L203-204: The author refers to the "complex interplay between atmospheric dynamics and topographical features", but this is not investigated in detail.
L211-212: "The cyclone effectively transported...". Mention that this is analyzed in other studies before the sentence.
L221-222: "Such synergy...is rare in other regions". I suggest reviewing the literature and adapting this sentence accordingly.
L227-228: "We examined...contributed to its longevity". This is not discussed in the manuscript.
L232: The author should provide a broader contextualization of the study and specify the actual novelty of the study.
L232-233: "The frequency of this process remains unclear": I suggest removing this part of the sentence because this study only investigates an event and thus, it does not contribute to clarify this aspect.
L234-237: The author should explain how to overcome this oversimplification.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1392-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1392', Anonymous Referee #3, 10 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1392/egusphere-2025-1392-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1392', Peter Haynes, 06 Jun 2025
The three referee reports on this paper were broadly consistent and strongly critical. All recommended that in its current form the paper is significantly short of the standard required for publication in ACP, and I note that publication as an ACP Letter, which is what you are seeking, requires the paper to be particularly noteworthy. One referee writes 'the novelty of the research is very overstated (and associated literature not cited), methodological details are insufficiently explained, and the analysis lacks depth' -- and the reports of the others make very similar points. My conclusion is that a paper on this work is not well-suited to the requirements of ACP Letters and I discourage you from preparing a revised version since I think that it is very unlikely indeed that you will be able to address the concerns of the referees within the ACP Letter format. You may wish to consider submitting a different paper describing this work, e.g. in a longer format, to a suitable journal in due course.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1392-EC1
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1392', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Apr 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1392', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2025
This study investigates the combined role of Greenland topography and the jet streak in the development and evolution of a cyclone observed during the MOSAiC campaign by means of numerical simulations of the event. The author concludes that the influence of both the jet streak and Lee Cyclogenesis are relevant during the development of the cyclone, while the effects of the Lee Cyclogenesis on the upper troposphere dominate in the later stage.
The study addresses a relevant question, but the methodology is not adequately explained and does not provide all the details that would allow the simulations to be reproduced. In addition, the analysis of the results does not explore in detail the mechanisms leading to the reported results, and the contextualization of the study requires a deeper literature review, while some of the statements on the novelty of this study should be tempered. Therefore, I recommend major revisions to solve all these issues.
Specific comments:
L15-16: Lee Cyclogenesis...has not been observed: Is the author referring to observations or to a lack of studies on this subject. In either case, I suggest doing an extensive literature review and changing this sentence if it is not accurate.
Abstract, second paragraph: It should be stated more clearly that this study only investigates a single event.
L57: Same comment as in L15-16.
L71-72: It would be useful to refer to a figure that includes the domain used in the simulations with the actual topography.
L72-74: some relevant information is missing for the 10-km runs (e.g. parameterizations) and there is no information on the global model runs used to provide initial and boundary conditions.
L79: Is the topography only removed in the 10-km simulation? Is there any additional modification required to run the simulation with removed topography?
L81: How is the nudging implemented and what are the differences between the areas with and without nudging with respect to the driving global run?
Section 3: Before discussing the results of the numerical simulations it would be interesting to the evolution of the observed cyclone and give an estimate on how accurately the numerical simulation reproduces the cyclone genesis and evolution.
Eqs. 1-6: I suggest including a table with all the definitions and avoid repeating the meaning of LC, SP, etc.
L203-204: The author refers to the "complex interplay between atmospheric dynamics and topographical features", but this is not investigated in detail.
L211-212: "The cyclone effectively transported...". Mention that this is analyzed in other studies before the sentence.
L221-222: "Such synergy...is rare in other regions". I suggest reviewing the literature and adapting this sentence accordingly.
L227-228: "We examined...contributed to its longevity". This is not discussed in the manuscript.
L232: The author should provide a broader contextualization of the study and specify the actual novelty of the study.
L232-233: "The frequency of this process remains unclear": I suggest removing this part of the sentence because this study only investigates an event and thus, it does not contribute to clarify this aspect.
L234-237: The author should explain how to overcome this oversimplification.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1392-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1392', Anonymous Referee #3, 10 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1392/egusphere-2025-1392-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1392', Peter Haynes, 06 Jun 2025
The three referee reports on this paper were broadly consistent and strongly critical. All recommended that in its current form the paper is significantly short of the standard required for publication in ACP, and I note that publication as an ACP Letter, which is what you are seeking, requires the paper to be particularly noteworthy. One referee writes 'the novelty of the research is very overstated (and associated literature not cited), methodological details are insufficiently explained, and the analysis lacks depth' -- and the reports of the others make very similar points. My conclusion is that a paper on this work is not well-suited to the requirements of ACP Letters and I discourage you from preparing a revised version since I think that it is very unlikely indeed that you will be able to address the concerns of the referees within the ACP Letter format. You may wish to consider submitting a different paper describing this work, e.g. in a longer format, to a suitable journal in due course.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1392-EC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
293 | 38 | 21 | 352 | 13 | 32 |
- HTML: 293
- PDF: 38
- XML: 21
- Total: 352
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 32
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1