Evidence of gravity wave contribution to vertical shear and mixing in the lower stratosphere: a WISE case study

Umbarkar, Madhuri; Kunkel, Daniel; Miltenberger, Annette; Lachnitt, Hans-Christoph; Kaluza, Thorsten; Schwenk, Cornelis; Hoor, Peter

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-5142

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5142

Preprints

19 Dec 2025

| 19 Dec 2025

Evidence of gravity wave contribution to vertical shear and mixing in the lower stratosphere: a WISE case study

Madhuri Umbarkar, Daniel Kunkel, Annette Miltenberger, Hans-Christoph Lachnitt, Thorsten Kaluza, Cornelis Schwenk, and Peter Hoor

Abstract. Evidence is presented which illustrates the role of atmospheric gravity wave (GW) induced shear as a mechanism for the occurrence of clear air turbulence and exchange of air masses with different chemical composition in the lower stratosphere. This study investigates the characteristics of GWs and their impact on the distribution of trace species in the lowermost stratosphere during an extratropical cyclone over the North Atlantic using airborne in-situ observations, ERA5 reanalysis data as well as IFS and ICON forecast data. Tracer observations as well as model simulations reveal fine scale structures around the tropopause which are embedded in a region influenced by the inertia gravity waves, warm conveyor belt ascent and mesoscale modifications of the tropopause structure. The GWs propagate through highly sheared flow above the jet stream maximum, perturbing background wind shear and static stability, and thereby creating conditions conducive to turbulent mixing in the lowermost stratosphere. The observed significant correlation between GW-induced momentum flux and enhanced shear perturbations confirms the role of GWs in driving potential turbulence and facilitating trace gas exchange in the lower stratosphere. Further analysis of turbulence diagnostics suggests that GWs produce shear which leads to the occurrence of clear air turbulence.

Received: 16 Oct 2025 – Discussion started: 19 Dec 2025

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, 19665 KB)

Supplement (13915 KB)

Download & links

Preprint (19665 KB)
Metadata XML
Supplement (13915 KB)
BibTeX
EndNote

Madhuri Umbarkar, Daniel Kunkel, Annette Miltenberger, Hans-Christoph Lachnitt, Thorsten Kaluza, Cornelis Schwenk, and Peter Hoor

Status: final response (author comments only)

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5142', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Jan 2026
Review of "Evidence of gravity wave contribution to vertical shear and mixing in the lower stratosphere: a WISE case study" by Umbarkar et al.
The manuscript investigates the role of gravity-wave (GW) induced shear in generating turbulence and associated irreversible mixing of air masses and chemical tracers in the UTLS, based on observations from the WISE campaign over the North Atlantic. Campaign observations, reanalysis data, and forecasts from two NWP models -- ICON at ~3 km horizontal resolution over the studied domain and IFS at ~9 km -- are used to examine the role of GWs. Attributing turbulence and clear-air turbulence (CAT) to GWs in a real-world setting is inherently challenging compared to idealised case studies. While the authors make a reasonable effort to disentangle these processes, and the topic is of clear interest to ACP, I find parts of the analysis unconvincing and the interpretation at times confusing. I believe substantial revisions are required before this manuscript can be recommended for publication. My major comments are listed below (in no particular order).
Major Comments:
Introduction / representation of turbulence: It should be stated more clearly that Kelvin-Helmholtz instability and turbulence are not explicitly resolved in ICON, IFS or ERA5 even if the gravity waves themselves are; instead, these processes are represented through subgrid-scale parameterizations. It would therefore be useful to analyse the contributions from these subgrid-scale processes explicitly. This distinction should be discussed, and where possible the relevant tendencies should be diagnosed. For example, in ERA5 these can be obtained from MARS using short forecasts on model levels, with fields such as the time-mean eastward and northward wind tendencies due to parameterizations.

Origin of the gravity waves: The source of the turbulence-inducing GWs is unclear from the analysis and discussion. Do the authors attribute these waves primarily to baroclinic instability, or to flow over orography? From the figures, flow over orography appears at least as plausible as baroclinic instability, particularly given that the GW signal occurs near the transition between ocean and Icelandic topography. The presence of a front does not necessarily imply GW generation via baroclinic instability; instead, the front may simply provide favourable background wind conditions allowing surface-generated GWs to propagate into the UTLS. It would therefore be useful to extend Fig. 6d–f down to the surface and to explicitly mark the underlying topography.

Comparison of ICON with IFS and ERA5: The ICON forecasts analysed here are at lead times of 3–4 days, whereas the IFS forecasts are at lead times of 0–1 day and therefore much closer to the analysis/ERA5. This difference should be explicitly acknowledged when comparing the two models. A major reason for the discrepancies between ICON and IFS is likely the different background flows, as ICON will have drifted further from the analysis. This is already evident in the large-scale fields shown in Figs. 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13, and the discussion of these figures should reflect this. For a more direct one-to-one comparison, the two models should ideally be compared at the same forecast lead time.

In Sect. 2.4, please also discuss the vertical resolution of ICON in the analysed region, as this is important for comparing vertical wavelengths with IFS (L331–332).

Regarding Fig. 6, it is notable that ICON and IFS show very similar GW amplitudes, even though ICON’s horizontal resolution in this region is about three times finer than that of IFS (3.3 km versus 9 km). One might expect ICON to produce larger-amplitude resolved GWs, consistent with the statement in L323 that nominal resolution controls resolved GW amplitude. This does not appear to be the case in Fig. 6. This could again be related to differences in the background flow. However, later in Figs. 8 and 11, ICON does show larger GW momentum fluxes than IFS, as expected given its higher resolution. Please comment on this apparent inconsistency. I am also somewhat confused by the ICON figures in the supplement and the discussion on L409-410: It was my understanding that you are analysing the nested simulations for ICON throughout the manuscript with the region of interest having 3km horizontal resolution. Is this not the case? If not you need to clarify section 2.4.

Scale separation in the UTLS (L159–161):

The authors state that their scale-separation approach follows commonly used GW separation methods and cite several previous studies. While this is indeed true in the stratosphere, where there is a clear scale separation between planetary waves and gravity waves (and where studies such as Gupta et al. and Stephan et al. apply these methods), the situation is less clear in the UTLS. In this region, the separation between GWs and other mesoscale structures is more ambiguous. Please comment on the applicability and limitations of this approach in the UTLS.

Figure 1 (PV field): Are regions of negative potential vorticity present, as suggested by the colour-bar range? If so, could these be highlighted using a distinct colour rather than shades of blue? Negative PV is dynamically significant and would indicate regions of instability.

Wavelength estimates (L302–303): Please state the estimated vertical and horizontal wavelengths explicitly here, so that they can be clearly compared with model-resolved scales later in the paper.

Interpretation of Fig. 6d–f and GW breaking: If irreversible mixing is attributed to GW-induced KH instability, why does the GW appear to continue propagating beyond the UTLS in Fig. 6d–f? This would suggest that the GW has not undergone saturation or breaking, which would normally be required for GW-induced CAT as argued in Sect. 4.4. Alternatively, this may not be the intended interpretation. The discussion in L361–368 is somewhat unclear and appears to suggest that only reversible GW propagation contributes to shear generation. Please clarify this point.

Figure 7 and GW contribution to shear: Since the authors argue that the GW contribution to shear is important for mixing, it would be very useful to show an analogue of Fig. 7 for S', i.e. the component of the shear associated with gravity waves. This would help to quantify how much GWs actually contribute to the shear and would also allow one to verify that this contribution is confined to regions where GWs can be clearly identified.

Section 4.5 and momentum-flux deposition: To complement Figs. 12 - 13, it would be useful to show the vertical gradient of the resolved GW momentum flux without any additional modulation. One would expect momentum-flux deposition in the region where GW-induced KH instability, CAT, and turbulence occur. Is this observed?

Minor comments and typos are provided in the marked-up PDF. This annotated PDF also re-iterates the major comments listed above in the relevant part of the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5142-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5142', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Jan 2026

see attached PDF

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5142-RC2
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5142', Anonymous Referee #3, 05 Feb 2026

The manuscript describes a case study of gravity wave generation and induced turbulence and mixing in the

extratropical tropopause region. It combines airborne observations from a field campaign and several model outputs

(reanalysis, and two high-resolution runs or forecasts). The combination illustrates convincingly a case of

turbulence induced in the lowermost stratosphere, in a highly sheared region above the jet, by low-frequency

gravity waves. There are some points which can be improved (see major concerns below and a series of minor

points regarding the framing of the motivation, in the introduction). These different concerns likely

require only minor revisions.
Major concerns
1. The link between gravity waves and the occurence of turbulence is expected from dynamical reasons, with

the GW fluctuations enhancing the shear and modifying stability. However, the choice to use the Absolute

Momenum Flux (AMF) to quantify GW when relating turbulence to gravity waves (l140-141). There is not necessarily

a better choice for quantitatively relating the two. Nonetheless, the choice to use AMF should be better explained.

What is the theoretical justification to use absolute momentum fluxes (AMF) in order to investigate

"vertical transport due to small-scale processes"? For conservative waves (i.e. in the absence of dissipation), it is

possible to have large fluxes associated to displacements which are reversible, and hence do not lead to net transport.

AMF is a quadratic quantity, and it depends on the frequency of the waves, with the low-frequency waves carrying

less momentum than high-frequency waves. The impacts of waves on stratification and on shear will also involve both

their amplitudes, and their frequency.
2. About the discussion and conclusions: the authors benefit from a case which has been documented by airborne observations.

Regarding the results that concern turbulence and mixing, how much of the conclusions are supported by evidence from

the measurements? It is not sufficiently clear, in the concluding section, which statements are based on inferences

based on modelled diagnostics (Richardson number, Turbulence Indices...) and which statements (regarding mixing

and turbulence) are based on the measurements.

Minor concerns
l16-18: 'Large amounts of momentum and energy can be propagated and transferred..' The sentence should be rephrased.

There are two concerns: one should not overstate the role of gravity waves in the circulation, and the formulation

is clumsy.

Gravity waves matter for the general circulation. Their vertical propagation induces momentum fluxes that contribute

to driving the mean circulation in the middle atmosphere (stratosphere and mesosphere). In the mid-latitudes,

this contribution can be important but is secondary relative to that of Rossby waves, in particular planetary

waves. In the mesosphere, the contribution of gravity waves is essential. The reference cited rather emphasizes

the contribution of large-scale, balanced waves.
l32-34: moist processes turn out to play an important role in the generation of GW from mid-latitude and

high-latitude weather systems (e.g. Wei and Zhang 2014, Plougonven et al 2015, Holt et al 2017)
l36-38: The sentence on baroclinic lifecycles is ambiguous: is this a statement on the contribution of

weather systems (i.e. synoptic activity)? While weather systems are essential to the tropospheric circulation

and zonally-averaged zonal flow, their influence does not necessarily penetrate very far into the stratosphere;

the contribution from larger-scale Rossby waves is more important for the Brewer-Dobson Circulation (line 37).

However, it seems that the topic of these two sentences should rather be 'Gravity waves excited from

tropospheric weather systems (or synoptic eddies)...' given that the references given on line 38 are

reviews on gravity waves. With gravity waves in mind, one should more clearly separate the different impacts:
1. the vertical transfer of momentum; regarding this, what is in fact essential is the ultimate dissipation

of the momentum fluxes associated to gravity waves, leading to forcing of the background flow at upper levels.

Models to not take into account a 'depletion' of momentum at the launch level of GW parameterization. In this

sense, what matters really is the forcing of the gravity waves in the middle atmosphere, not a 'transfer of

momentum', since the source region is not affected. This forcing of the middle atmosphere's circulation is

the main motivation and main purpose of parameterizations.
2. there are local impacts due to gravity waves, such as enhancement of local shear, and onset of turbulence

where the waves break. This has implications for vertical mixing. These effects are known to exist, but are

not as high on the list as the forcing of the circulation in the stratosphere and mesosphere. This should be

reflected in the way these implications are put forward in the introduction.
l48-49: the effect of GWs on the thermodynamic structure near the tropopause should be made more precise.

GWs that do not dissipate induce fluctuations, which are reversible. Hence, although they modify locally

the shear and stratification, this is averages out in a time average, a priori. The situation is different

when dissipation is present: mixing due to breaking induces irreversible transport. Dissipation of momentum

or heat fluxes induce a forcing of the background flow. What the authors have in mind here should be better

explained.
l75-78: There is a problem in the discussion of the motivations of this study. The different processes and different

scales through which gravity wave may have impacts are stated in a way that includes repetition and which could be

better organized, here and in other parts of the introduction. For example, in lines 75-78, the first sentence

of the paragraph highlights the impact of gravity wave breaking for "vertical mixing of

key tracers". The third sentence begins by "Beyond its relevance to aviation", although aviation has not been

highlighted in the previous sentences, and "cross-tropopause transport" is highlighted - although this is very

related to "vertical mixing of key tracers"...
l86-87: the status of the idealized baroclinic lifecycles is ambiguous from the phrasing: it may be understood that

the impacts of gravity waves will be investigated in idealized baroclinic lifecycles. The next sentence clearly

indicates that observations and a real case study will be considered, in apparent contradiction.
l91: "whether ERA5 is good enough resolved to study GWs, shear and mixing in the UTLS": to be rephrased, e.g.

"which aspects of the gravity wave field can be reliably investigated in ERA5 fields, given their resolution."

l139: "ourself" -> "ourselves"?
l139-141: not sure to understand the logic of restraining to the consideration of PDFs; could the authors explain?

l155-161: while the methodology appears reasonable, and indeed consistent with what has been done in other studies,

it does mix different methods (spectral approach to obtain the perturbation quantities, then lowpass Gaussian filter

to average over several wavelengths and obtain a smooth estimate of the fluxes.
l176: "to account [FOR] this limitation"?
l178-179: the structure of the sentence is not clear, to be rewritten
l209: word missing? "between two equatorward [?] reaching..." or placed later in the sentence ("streamers")?
l229: "ascend" -> "ascent"?
l276-277: the paragraph discusses the measurements. Suddenly,
l292-293: "which rotates anticyclonically (cyclonically) for an upward (downward) propagating wave" -> "which rotates

anticyclonically for an upward propagating wave, and cyclonically for a downward propagating wave."?
l334-335: the conclusion that the IFS manages to capture the appearance of inertia-gravity waves excited

by jet-front systems, despite a limited resolution, is consistent with findings of previous studies that

have investigated gravity waves in ECMWF products and reanalyses in particular (see Jewtooukoff et al, 2O15, and

references therein).
l343: the authors emphasize the shear in Fig. 7, "in particular in ICON". This is somewhat at odds with the

figure, in which the shear in ICON seems weaker.
l371-391: as far as I understand, the relation between AMF (absolute Momentum Flux) and the shear is somewhat

opportunistic, rather than a fundamental relation. Momentum fluxes are used as a proxy for the presence

of waves, and these contribute to shear. Figure 8, perhaps because of the logarithmic axis and logarithmic colorbar,

does not seem so compelling regarding the correlation between shear and AMF. The text and comments around

this figure should clearly recognize that this relation is tentative.

l535-537: it is worth noting that there are several different uses that can be made of ERA5 for studies of GWs. It

is very challenging and demanding to expect the representation of small-scale shear to be accurate, let alone the

representation of the resulting turbulence. Providing insights about regions favorable to the occurence of

gravity waves is more reasonable. In the assessment of the value of ERA5 for GW studies, it should be mentionned that

there are different levels of information that may be targeted.
l540: "small-scale gravity waves": it is worthwhile being more precise here. It is possible to have low-frequency

waves which are small-scale in the vertical (vertical wavelength of a few hundred meters) yet retain horizontal

wavelength on the order of several tens to a hundred of kilometers. It is possible to hve higher frequency waves

that have horizontal wavelengths only of a few kilometers (and similar vertical wavelengths). The frequency (which

can be estimated from the tilt of the phase lines) matters very much in the description of the waves.
l541-544: the relationship highlighted here is not clear: do the authors highlight GWs producing pockets of turbulence, through

local enhancement of shear? Or do they have evidence for secondary generation of smaller-scale gravity waves where a

primary wave-packet breaks? The second interpretation does not appear very likely, but the structure of the sentence is

ambiguoous (~ "Turbulence (...) correlates with appearance of (...) small-scale gravity waves"..
l560-561: on the difficulty of convergence with resolution, the study by Kruse et al 2022 is also relevant.

Holt, L. A., Alexander, M. J., Coy, L., Liu, C., Molod, A., Putman, W., & Pawson, S. (2017). An evaluation of gravity waves and gravity wave sources in the Southern Hemisphere in a 7 km global climate simulation. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 143(707), 2481-2495.
Wei, J., & Zhang, F. (2014). Mesoscale gravity waves in moist baroclinic jet–front systems. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 71(3), 929-952.
Plougonven, R., Hertzog, A., & Alexander, M. J. (2015). Case studies of nonorographic gravity waves over the Southern Ocean emphasize the role of moisture. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 120(4), 1278-1299.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5142-RC3

Madhuri Umbarkar, Daniel Kunkel, Annette Miltenberger, Hans-Christoph Lachnitt, Thorsten Kaluza, Cornelis Schwenk, and Peter Hoor

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5142-supplement

Data sets

Data used for "Evidence of gravity wave contribution to vertical shear and mixing in the lower stratosphere: a WISE case study" Madhuri Umbarkar https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17227439

Madhuri Umbarkar, Daniel Kunkel, Annette Miltenberger, Hans-Christoph Lachnitt, Thorsten Kaluza, Cornelis Schwenk, and Peter Hoor

Viewed

Total article views: 355 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
213	122	20	355	44	34	27

HTML: 213
PDF: 122
XML: 20
Total: 355
Supplement: 44
BibTeX: 34
EndNote: 27

Views and downloads (calculated since 19 Dec 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2025	84	52	11	147
Jan 2026	111	62	5	178
Feb 2026	18	8	4	30

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 19 Dec 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2025	84	52	11	147
Jan 2026	111	62	5	178
Feb 2026	18	8	4	30

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 315 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 315 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 07 Feb 2026

Short summary

We present an extratropical cyclone case study over the North Atlantic, focusing on the role of atmospheric gravity waves (GWs) in the generation of enhanced vertical wind shear and (clear-air) turbulence, as well as their impact on tracers distribution in the lowermost stratosphere. Our research suggests the GW related processes should be considered as a key for UTLS transport and mixing and as an important candidate for the interpretation of CAT, that appear to emanate from GW-induced shear.


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