Observing mesoscale dynamics with multistatic specular meteor radars: first climatology of momentum flux, horizontal divergence and relative vorticity over central Europe

Conte, J. Federico; Chau, Jorge L.; Renkwitz, Toralf; Latteck, Ralph; Tsutsumi, Masaki; Jacobi, Christoph; Gulbrandsen, Njål; Nozawa, Satonori

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996

Preprints

21 May 2025

| 21 May 2025

Observing mesoscale dynamics with multistatic specular meteor radars: first climatology of momentum flux, horizontal divergence and relative vorticity over central Europe

J. Federico Conte, Jorge L. Chau, Toralf Renkwitz, Ralph Latteck, Masaki Tsutsumi, Christoph Jacobi, Njål Gulbrandsen, and Satonori Nozawa

Abstract. Continuous and reliable measurements of the mesosphere and lower thermosphere (MLT) are key to further the understanding of global atmospheric dynamics. Observations at horizontal scales of a few hundred kilometers (i.e., mesoscales) are particularly important since gravity waves have been recognized as the main drivers of various global phenomena, e.g., the pole-to-pole residual meridional circulation. Multistatic specular meteor radars are well suited to routinely probe the MLT at these scales. One way to accomplish this, is by investigating the momentum flux, horizontal divergence ∇_H·u and relative vorticity (∇×u)_Z estimated from the Doppler shifts measured by a radar network. Furthermore, the comparison between the horizontal divergence and the relative vorticity can be used to determine the relative importance of gravity waves (i.e., divergent motions) and strongly stratified turbulence (i.e., vortical motions). This work presents the first climatology of all these estimates together, as well as results on the probability distribution of the total momentum flux (TMF), and the comparison between ∇_H·u and (∇×u)_Z , obtained from almost 10 years of continuous measurements provided by two multistatic specular meteor radar networks: MMARIA/SIMONe Germany, covering an area of more than 200 km radius around (53°N, 11°E), and MMARIA/SIMONe Norway, which covers an area of similar size, but around (69°N, 16°E). Among others, our results indicate that at middle latitudes the horizontal divergence and the relative vorticity are balanced around summer mesopause altitudes, while the former dominates over the latter above ~90 km of altitude during parts of the fall transition. At high latitudes, the vortical motions dominate during late spring and early summer. Besides, the strongest 5 % of GWs contribute much more over northern Germany than over northern Norway, where the larger values of the excess-kurtosis indicate that the contribution from the small-amplitude GWs is also more significant at middle latitudes, especially during the summer. In other words, the TMF in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere over central Europe is considerably more intermittent at middle latitudes than at high latitudes.

Received: 28 Apr 2025 – Discussion started: 21 May 2025

Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Annales Geophysicae. The peer-review process was guided by an independent editor, and the authors also have no other competing interests to declare.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 2264 KB)

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 (2264 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

20 Oct 2025

Observing mesoscale dynamics with multistatic specular meteor radars: first climatology of momentum flux, horizontal divergence and relative vorticity over northern central Europe

J. Federico Conte, Jorge L. Chau, Toralf Renkwitz, Ralph Latteck, Masaki Tsutsumi, Christoph Jacobi, Njål Gulbrandsen, and Satonori Nozawa

Ann. Geophys., 43, 603–619, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-43-603-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-43-603-2025, 2025

Short summary

J. Federico Conte, Jorge L. Chau, Toralf Renkwitz, Ralph Latteck, Masaki Tsutsumi, Christoph Jacobi, Njål Gulbrandsen, and Satonori Nozawa

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1996', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Jul 2025

General comments
In the manuscript under review, the authors have used multistatic specular meteor radars to show the first climatology of momentum flux, horizontal divergence and relative vorticity over middle and high latitudes in central Europe. For this, 7 years of observations from MMARIA/SIMONe Germany and 10 years of observations from MMARIA/SIMONe Norway, were used. The measurements obtained by multistatic specular meteor radars have proven to be a powerful tool for better understanding of the mesosphere-lower thermosphere dynamics by measuring of parameters that help characterize atmospheric waves and turbulence. The techniques and methods used to achieve the results had already been applied in previous studies and proved to be suitable for the required analyses. The manuscript presentation is clear and the scientific contribution is appropriate for this journal. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed.

Specific comments
Page 2, line 43
In the sentence:“On the other hand, the ability of the GWs to reach the right altitudes necessary” , change the word “right’ by “suitable” (only a suggestion)

Page 8, lines 220-221:
This explanation about highest year-to-year variability in Figures 3 and 4, looks confused, mainly for fluxes and vorticity.

Page 9 lines 245-246
Examining Figure 4 for zonal momentum flux, I see that the summer shows a strong eastward zonal momentum flux above 81 km and below 86 km (not around 81-82 km) of altitude. Comment the strong westward zonal momentum flux that appear below 81 km during summer.

Page 10, lines 275-277
In the sentences:
“In summer, our results at high latitudes (northern Norway) show ....”
“Above it, vortical motions dominate during the first half of the summer” ,
Wouldn't it be from mid-spring, instead of summer?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fede Conte, 10 Jul 2025
  
  Dear reviewer,
  Thank you very much for your helpful comments/corretions. We will adress them and modify the manuscript accordingly.
  Regards,
  Fede Conte.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC1
- AC5:
  'Reply on RC1', Fede Conte, 06 Aug 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1996/egusphere-2025-1996-AC5-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC5
  - AC7: 'Reply on AC5', Fede Conte, 06 Aug 2025
    
    This reply corresponds to RC2 (reviewer # 2).
    My apologies for the mistake.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC7
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1996', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jul 2025

The paper by Conte et al. investigates the effects of mesoscale motions in the MLT and presents the climatology of the transport of vertical momentum fluxes, the horizontal divergence and the relative vorticity. The authors estimate these parameters from multistatic specular meteor radar measurements by applying techniques developed in the past 10 years.
This is a well written paper that deserves to be published. I just have a few observations that should be addressed prior to publication.

Regarding the vertical thickness layer of 2 km to estimate horizontal wind. Is there any superposition between adjacent layers?
page 6, line 166: regarding the gaps in the wind, the authors state that they found 13 hourly gaps in the data and filled them with linear interpolation. How are these gaps distributed? What is the longest sequence of missing data?
Are the units of momentum flux meters*Pascal? The dimension of momentum flux ρ<u’w’> in the metric system is kg*m-3*ms-1*ms-1. How could it end up in m*Pa?
In the discussion session, the authors talk about the “number of links” that the radar systems have. Nevertheless, it is not clear what they are. Please, spend a few words to clarify it.

Minor
In text, the authors use the words “fall” and “autumn”. I suggest the choice of one of them.
page 5, line 357-358: “...thus the horizontal wind horizontal gradients still be influenced by the rotation of the Earth…” I feel some is missing.
suggestion: thus the horizontal wind horizontal gradients still can/could be influenced by the rotation of the Earth.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fede Conte, 10 Jul 2025
  
  Dear reviewer,
  Thank you very much for your helpful comments/corretions. We will adress them and modify the manuscript accordingly.
  Regards,
  Fede Conte.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC2
- AC4:
  'Reply on RC2', Fede Conte, 06 Aug 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1996/egusphere-2025-1996-AC4-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC4
  - AC8: 'Reply on AC4', Fede Conte, 06 Aug 2025
    
    This reply corresponds to RC1 (reviewer # 1).
    Apologies for the confusion.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC8
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1996', Anonymous Referee #3, 10 Jul 2025

Comments on ‘Observing mesoscale dynamics with multistatic specular meteor radars: first climatology of momentum flux, horizontal divergence and relative vorticity over central Europe’ by Conte et al.
This paper presents long-term observations of mesosphere-lower thermosphere dynamics using specular meteor radar systems whose operation has been extended beyond the standard mono-static design. This development allows new parameters that describe motions within the radar viewing area to be calculated. These parameters are novel and the implications of their magnitudes and variations are still being refined. Here, an extensive climatology for two sites is presented and discussed. The presentation of the data is an important step in our understanding of MLT dynamics. It is difficult to fully judge the veracity of conclusions drawn in relation to the novel parameters but the work provides a substantial building block towards our understanding.
Specific comments:
The title refers to central Europe. I would recommend it make reference to northern Europe as well.
Spectral analysis of the winds presented in figures 1 and 2 is used to discuss the nature of tides in the MLT. The calculation of a spectrum of the entire data set has its merits (some of which are unexplored, such as the spectral broadening that can occur due to the presence of various semidiurnal wavenumbers) but it loses sight of seasonal variations in tides. There is potential for more work here by separating the spectra into summer and winter (and perhaps by zooming in on the spectral shape of the peaks associated with the main tidal modes).
A more significant concern with the spectral analysis is the role that diurnal variations in quality of the wind determinations might play. The tidal spectral peaks are a convolution of the true tidal spectrum and the Fourier transform of the daily window function describing the quality of the determination of the corresponding wind component. Certainly, in the case of mono-static meteor wind radars, the quality of the (e.g.) zonal wind determination varies through the day. In this study the amplitudes of the lower period tides could be affected by this convolution process. This brings in to question the detailed discussion of the 6, 4.8 and 4 hour tides. The paper would not be adversely affected by leaving out these discussions but some consideration of the daily variation of the quality of the determinations of U and V would be an important addition to the paper and our knowledge of the multistatic radar method (or perhaps this has been done elsewhere and a reference can be provided).
The discussion around line 205 relating to the role of the Coriolis effect is vague and not convincing. In the context of the tides being discussed, it would be more relevant to consider the latitudinal variation of the Hough ‘functions’ for U and V.
Section 3.3:
Does the analysis allow large MF (or TMF) values or are they attenuated by it? Given that there is consideration of GW intermittency in the paper, some discussion on the analysis method’s ability to reliably capture the amplitude of a large GW unattenuated is important (e.g. around line 291).
There is a paper by Love and Murphy (2016) doi:10.1002/2016JD025627 that is relevant here and should be included in the discussion.
A concern about these considerations of the momentum flux distribution is that the method described here does not extract the MF of individual wave events to the extent that the super pressure balloon work of the various Hertzog et al. papers and the radar work of Love and Murphy (2016). Here, the total MF, which is potentially a combination of multiple waves, is measured. Noting that MF is a vector quantity, the total MF will likely be smaller than the MF of the component waves. This factor, and the potential attenuation of the MF due to the fitting method mentioned above, need to be discussed when presenting the distributions in figure 7 because they will affect the shape of the tail. The results are of interest but differences to other observations (e.g in the amount of MF held by the large waves) could be explained in this way.
The contours showing 2 sigma variation in the climatology that are included in many of the plots are a good addition to them.
Technical comments:
L13 – suggest replace ‘balanced’ with ‘equal’
L28 – insert ‘with’ after ‘hours,’
L29 – insert ‘typically’ after ‘wavelengths’
L43 – suggest delete ‘only’
L42 – suggest replace ‘the horizontal’ with ‘GW horizontal’
L117 – Is the mathematical nomenclature correct here? It looks like a matrix equation. I think there should be a dot between the RHS terms and perhaps add commas after each term in the vertical stack between the large parentheses.
L130 – the explanation of the method described in equation (3) and this line is confusing. Given that the vector expression (u’ dot k) yields a number, how is its square not also a number. And yet, Reynolds stress terms result. Can you please clarify and/or rewrite this?
L161 – Suggest delete ‘Besides’
L210 – Suggest replace ‘with horizontal scales where the Coriolis effect has little to no impact (i.e. mesoscales)’ with ‘that are not harmonics of the solar forcing’
L227 - Suggest delete ‘Besides’
L236 – When introducing figures 5 and 6, the authors should state why the various parameters on this line are of interest.
L250 – Please provide more explanation of what is meant by ‘in accordance with the residual meridional circulation’. Do you mean it coincides with its variations or are you suggest a relationship?
L336 – insert ‘a’ before ‘consequence’
L357 – insert ‘can’ after ‘gradients’
L359 – change ‘others’ to ‘other things’
L362 – change ‘not so rich’ to ‘limited’
L363 – Please explain what you mean by a ‘link’ when you introduce this term here.
L399 – insert ‘km’ after ‘85’
L445 – delete ‘the one’

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Fede Conte, 10 Jul 2025
  
  Dear reviewer,
  Thank you very much for your helpful comments/corretions. We will take them into consideration and modify the manuscript accordingly.
  Regards,
  Fede Conte.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC3
- AC6: 'Reply on RC3', Fede Conte, 06 Aug 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1996/egusphere-2025-1996-AC6-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC6

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1996', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Jul 2025

General comments
In the manuscript under review, the authors have used multistatic specular meteor radars to show the first climatology of momentum flux, horizontal divergence and relative vorticity over middle and high latitudes in central Europe. For this, 7 years of observations from MMARIA/SIMONe Germany and 10 years of observations from MMARIA/SIMONe Norway, were used. The measurements obtained by multistatic specular meteor radars have proven to be a powerful tool for better understanding of the mesosphere-lower thermosphere dynamics by measuring of parameters that help characterize atmospheric waves and turbulence. The techniques and methods used to achieve the results had already been applied in previous studies and proved to be suitable for the required analyses. The manuscript presentation is clear and the scientific contribution is appropriate for this journal. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed.

Specific comments
Page 2, line 43
In the sentence:“On the other hand, the ability of the GWs to reach the right altitudes necessary” , change the word “right’ by “suitable” (only a suggestion)

Page 8, lines 220-221:
This explanation about highest year-to-year variability in Figures 3 and 4, looks confused, mainly for fluxes and vorticity.

Page 9 lines 245-246
Examining Figure 4 for zonal momentum flux, I see that the summer shows a strong eastward zonal momentum flux above 81 km and below 86 km (not around 81-82 km) of altitude. Comment the strong westward zonal momentum flux that appear below 81 km during summer.

Page 10, lines 275-277
In the sentences:
“In summer, our results at high latitudes (northern Norway) show ....”
“Above it, vortical motions dominate during the first half of the summer” ,
Wouldn't it be from mid-spring, instead of summer?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fede Conte, 10 Jul 2025
  
  Dear reviewer,
  Thank you very much for your helpful comments/corretions. We will adress them and modify the manuscript accordingly.
  Regards,
  Fede Conte.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC1
- AC5:
  'Reply on RC1', Fede Conte, 06 Aug 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1996/egusphere-2025-1996-AC5-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC5
  - AC7: 'Reply on AC5', Fede Conte, 06 Aug 2025
    
    This reply corresponds to RC2 (reviewer # 2).
    My apologies for the mistake.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC7
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1996', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jul 2025

The paper by Conte et al. investigates the effects of mesoscale motions in the MLT and presents the climatology of the transport of vertical momentum fluxes, the horizontal divergence and the relative vorticity. The authors estimate these parameters from multistatic specular meteor radar measurements by applying techniques developed in the past 10 years.
This is a well written paper that deserves to be published. I just have a few observations that should be addressed prior to publication.

Regarding the vertical thickness layer of 2 km to estimate horizontal wind. Is there any superposition between adjacent layers?
page 6, line 166: regarding the gaps in the wind, the authors state that they found 13 hourly gaps in the data and filled them with linear interpolation. How are these gaps distributed? What is the longest sequence of missing data?
Are the units of momentum flux meters*Pascal? The dimension of momentum flux ρ<u’w’> in the metric system is kg*m-3*ms-1*ms-1. How could it end up in m*Pa?
In the discussion session, the authors talk about the “number of links” that the radar systems have. Nevertheless, it is not clear what they are. Please, spend a few words to clarify it.

Minor
In text, the authors use the words “fall” and “autumn”. I suggest the choice of one of them.
page 5, line 357-358: “...thus the horizontal wind horizontal gradients still be influenced by the rotation of the Earth…” I feel some is missing.
suggestion: thus the horizontal wind horizontal gradients still can/could be influenced by the rotation of the Earth.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fede Conte, 10 Jul 2025
  
  Dear reviewer,
  Thank you very much for your helpful comments/corretions. We will adress them and modify the manuscript accordingly.
  Regards,
  Fede Conte.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC2
- AC4:
  'Reply on RC2', Fede Conte, 06 Aug 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1996/egusphere-2025-1996-AC4-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC4
  - AC8: 'Reply on AC4', Fede Conte, 06 Aug 2025
    
    This reply corresponds to RC1 (reviewer # 1).
    Apologies for the confusion.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC8
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1996', Anonymous Referee #3, 10 Jul 2025

Comments on ‘Observing mesoscale dynamics with multistatic specular meteor radars: first climatology of momentum flux, horizontal divergence and relative vorticity over central Europe’ by Conte et al.
This paper presents long-term observations of mesosphere-lower thermosphere dynamics using specular meteor radar systems whose operation has been extended beyond the standard mono-static design. This development allows new parameters that describe motions within the radar viewing area to be calculated. These parameters are novel and the implications of their magnitudes and variations are still being refined. Here, an extensive climatology for two sites is presented and discussed. The presentation of the data is an important step in our understanding of MLT dynamics. It is difficult to fully judge the veracity of conclusions drawn in relation to the novel parameters but the work provides a substantial building block towards our understanding.
Specific comments:
The title refers to central Europe. I would recommend it make reference to northern Europe as well.
Spectral analysis of the winds presented in figures 1 and 2 is used to discuss the nature of tides in the MLT. The calculation of a spectrum of the entire data set has its merits (some of which are unexplored, such as the spectral broadening that can occur due to the presence of various semidiurnal wavenumbers) but it loses sight of seasonal variations in tides. There is potential for more work here by separating the spectra into summer and winter (and perhaps by zooming in on the spectral shape of the peaks associated with the main tidal modes).
A more significant concern with the spectral analysis is the role that diurnal variations in quality of the wind determinations might play. The tidal spectral peaks are a convolution of the true tidal spectrum and the Fourier transform of the daily window function describing the quality of the determination of the corresponding wind component. Certainly, in the case of mono-static meteor wind radars, the quality of the (e.g.) zonal wind determination varies through the day. In this study the amplitudes of the lower period tides could be affected by this convolution process. This brings in to question the detailed discussion of the 6, 4.8 and 4 hour tides. The paper would not be adversely affected by leaving out these discussions but some consideration of the daily variation of the quality of the determinations of U and V would be an important addition to the paper and our knowledge of the multistatic radar method (or perhaps this has been done elsewhere and a reference can be provided).
The discussion around line 205 relating to the role of the Coriolis effect is vague and not convincing. In the context of the tides being discussed, it would be more relevant to consider the latitudinal variation of the Hough ‘functions’ for U and V.
Section 3.3:
Does the analysis allow large MF (or TMF) values or are they attenuated by it? Given that there is consideration of GW intermittency in the paper, some discussion on the analysis method’s ability to reliably capture the amplitude of a large GW unattenuated is important (e.g. around line 291).
There is a paper by Love and Murphy (2016) doi:10.1002/2016JD025627 that is relevant here and should be included in the discussion.
A concern about these considerations of the momentum flux distribution is that the method described here does not extract the MF of individual wave events to the extent that the super pressure balloon work of the various Hertzog et al. papers and the radar work of Love and Murphy (2016). Here, the total MF, which is potentially a combination of multiple waves, is measured. Noting that MF is a vector quantity, the total MF will likely be smaller than the MF of the component waves. This factor, and the potential attenuation of the MF due to the fitting method mentioned above, need to be discussed when presenting the distributions in figure 7 because they will affect the shape of the tail. The results are of interest but differences to other observations (e.g in the amount of MF held by the large waves) could be explained in this way.
The contours showing 2 sigma variation in the climatology that are included in many of the plots are a good addition to them.
Technical comments:
L13 – suggest replace ‘balanced’ with ‘equal’
L28 – insert ‘with’ after ‘hours,’
L29 – insert ‘typically’ after ‘wavelengths’
L43 – suggest delete ‘only’
L42 – suggest replace ‘the horizontal’ with ‘GW horizontal’
L117 – Is the mathematical nomenclature correct here? It looks like a matrix equation. I think there should be a dot between the RHS terms and perhaps add commas after each term in the vertical stack between the large parentheses.
L130 – the explanation of the method described in equation (3) and this line is confusing. Given that the vector expression (u’ dot k) yields a number, how is its square not also a number. And yet, Reynolds stress terms result. Can you please clarify and/or rewrite this?
L161 – Suggest delete ‘Besides’
L210 – Suggest replace ‘with horizontal scales where the Coriolis effect has little to no impact (i.e. mesoscales)’ with ‘that are not harmonics of the solar forcing’
L227 - Suggest delete ‘Besides’
L236 – When introducing figures 5 and 6, the authors should state why the various parameters on this line are of interest.
L250 – Please provide more explanation of what is meant by ‘in accordance with the residual meridional circulation’. Do you mean it coincides with its variations or are you suggest a relationship?
L336 – insert ‘a’ before ‘consequence’
L357 – insert ‘can’ after ‘gradients’
L359 – change ‘others’ to ‘other things’
L362 – change ‘not so rich’ to ‘limited’
L363 – Please explain what you mean by a ‘link’ when you introduce this term here.
L399 – insert ‘km’ after ‘85’
L445 – delete ‘the one’

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Fede Conte, 10 Jul 2025
  
  Dear reviewer,
  Thank you very much for your helpful comments/corretions. We will take them into consideration and modify the manuscript accordingly.
  Regards,
  Fede Conte.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC3
- AC6: 'Reply on RC3', Fede Conte, 06 Aug 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1996/egusphere-2025-1996-AC6-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1996-AC6

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (18 Aug 2025) by Igo Paulino

AR by Fede Conte on behalf of the Authors (18 Aug 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (18 Aug 2025) by Igo Paulino

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (25 Aug 2025)

ED: Publish as is (25 Aug 2025) by Igo Paulino

AR by Fede Conte on behalf of the Authors (01 Sep 2025) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

20 Oct 2025

Observing mesoscale dynamics with multistatic specular meteor radars: first climatology of momentum flux, horizontal divergence and relative vorticity over northern central Europe

J. Federico Conte, Jorge L. Chau, Toralf Renkwitz, Ralph Latteck, Masaki Tsutsumi, Christoph Jacobi, Njål Gulbrandsen, and Satonori Nozawa

Ann. Geophys., 43, 603–619, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-43-603-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-43-603-2025, 2025

Short summary

J. Federico Conte, Jorge L. Chau, Toralf Renkwitz, Ralph Latteck, Masaki Tsutsumi, Christoph Jacobi, Njål Gulbrandsen, and Satonori Nozawa

Viewed

Total article views: 2,751 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
2,647	65	39	2,751	116	135

HTML: 2,647
PDF: 65
XML: 39
Total: 2,751
BibTeX: 116
EndNote: 135

Views and downloads (calculated since 21 May 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2025	55	11	3	69
Jun 2025	77	6	6	89
Jul 2025	64	20	13	97
Aug 2025	461	13	14	488
Sep 2025	1,898	5	3	1,906
Oct 2025	92	10	0	102

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 21 May 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2025	55	11	3	69
Jun 2025	77	6	6	89
Jul 2025	64	20	13	97
Aug 2025	461	13	14	488
Sep 2025	1,898	5	3	1,906
Oct 2025	92	10	0	102

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 2,831 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 2,831 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 30 Oct 2025

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (2264 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Analysis of 10 years of continuous measurements provided MMARIA/SIMONe Norway and MMARIA/SIMONe Germany reveals that the divergent and vortical motions in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere exchange the dominant role depending on the height and the time of the year. At summer mesopause altitudes over middle latitudes, the horizontal divergence and the relative vorticity contribute approximately the same, indicating an energetic balance between mesoscale divergent and vortical motions.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0