the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Atmospheric gravity waves observed in Brazil on 14 October 2023
Abstract. This study investigates the characteristics and origins of atmospheric gravity waves (AGWs) observed over Brazil following the annular solar eclipse of 14 October 2023. Utilizing a network of all-sky imagers located at Santarém, São João do Cariri and Bom Jesus da Lapa. Some medium- and small-scale gravity waves were identified in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere (MLT) via airglow emissions. To determine the likely sources of these waves, a reverse ray-tracing method was employed, incorporating empirical wind (HWM14) and temperature (NRLMSISE-00) models, alongside top cloud temperature data to account for tropospheric convection. Analysis of four distinct wave cases revealed a complex spectrum of propagation dynamics. At São João do Cariri, both a medium-scale wave (horizontal wavelength, λH = 174.4 km) and a small-scale wave (λH = 21.3 km) were traced back to stratospheric altitudes where their trajectories intersected the Moon's shadow. The absence of local convective systems suggests these waves were likely triggered by eclipse-induced atmospheric cooling. At Santarém, a large-scale wave (λH = 1523.8 km) with a high phase speed (218 m/s) was found to originate near the eclipse path at the tropopause. Conversely, a wave observed at Bom Jesus da Lapa (λH = 635.5 km), while geographically near the eclipse path, showed temporal and spatial alignment with tropospheric convection rather than the elipse path. These findings highlight the dual role of solar eclipses and convective processes in generating AGWs and demonstrate the efficacy of ray-tracing in distinguishing between transient astronomical triggers and persistent meteorological sources.
Competing interests: Igo Paulino is a member of the editorial board of Annales Geophysicae.
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.- Preprint
(25093 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6571', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Mar 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2025-6571/egusphere-2025-6571-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-6571-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Anderson Vestena Bilibio, 14 May 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2025-6571/egusphere-2025-6571-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Anderson Vestena Bilibio, 14 May 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6571', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 May 2026
This study analyzed mesospheric atmospheric gravity waves observed by ground-based optical cameras at three locations following a solar eclipse that crossed Brazil. First, this study estimated the wave propagation paths using a ray tracing method based on height profiles of wind velocity and temperature. Next, it examined satellite data to verify whether tropospheric convection was present near the estimated points of origin. As a result, this study identified cases as eclipse-induced atmospheric gravity waves when they met two criteria: (1) The propagation path in the stratosphere coincided with the timing and location of the solar eclipse passage. (2) No convective activity was observed near the ground level.
Since directly identifying the sources of atmospheric gravity waves is challenging, I believe the approach used here, that is, ray tracing, is the best available option. However, as the conclusions in this method depend on the underlying assumptions, it is essential to verify whether those assumptions are truly valid and to what extent errors might affect the results. To further enhance the quality of the study, I suggest adding a new Discussion Section to deepen the analysis of the following comments.
Major Comment 1
The tiny camera images inserted in Figure 1 provide insufficient information for understanding the characteristics of atmospheric waves; therefore, please remove them. Instead, please include snapshots (two-dimensional optical camera images from each observation point) separately from Figure 1 to verify the extraction quality of atmospheric gravity waves. Since the purpose is purely for confirmation, a minimum number of images will suffice. Additionally, please add an explanation using a keogram to support the validity of the wave parameters presented in Table 1.
Please consider the following points using the added keogram:
First, verify whether the appearance of the wave structure captured by the camera observations was relatively abrupt. If only atmospheric gravity waves generated in a specific, localized area reached the camera field-of-view, the observable duration is expected to be short. On the other hand, it is also possible that gravity waves were continuously generated at stratospheric altitudes along the solar eclipse path. In this case, the observable duration should maintain a certain length. Please conduct a multi-directional discussion, keeping in mind that the candidate source regions near the surface may move over time and potentially overlap with convective regions.
The current manuscript lacks a specific description of the characteristics of the observed atmospheric gravity waves. Relying solely on ray tracing results from data at a specific time carries the risk of being suspected as an "arbitrary interpretation" that extracts only data convenient for the analysis in this study.
Major Comment 2
The objective of assuming two different wind profiles in the ray-tracing simulation is to evaluate the uncertainty of the results. Please explain the logical background of how the differences in data obtained from these two profiles can serve as a basis for defining the allowable margin of error.
Major Comment 3
A temperature profile is required for ray tracing. While this study adopts the MSIS model values, please describe the potential errors associated with this assumption in the main text.
Major Comment 4
Schmidlin and Olsen (1984) suggest the possibility of a temperature decrease at altitudes of 55-60 km associated with a solar eclipse. However, a detailed examination of their results reveals a temperature drop of similar magnitude in the 42-50 km altitude range as well. If we assume that the temperature drop in this 42–50 km range excites the atmospheric gravity waves, the interpretation of Figures 3 and 5 in this study would differ from what is currently presented. While the assumption that gravity waves originate at 55-60 km is consistent with the conclusions of this study, sufficient explanation to fully support this conclusion has not been provided regarding the data near 42-50 km. Therefore, to ensure the validity of the findings, you should either clarify the rationale for selectively adopting the variations at 55-60 km or provide a more comprehensive discussion that includes the potential impact of variations near 42-50 km.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6571-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Anderson Vestena Bilibio, 14 May 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2025-6571/egusphere-2025-6571-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Anderson Vestena Bilibio, 14 May 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 959 | 780 | 88 | 1,827 | 275 | 259 |
- HTML: 959
- PDF: 780
- XML: 88
- Total: 1,827
- BibTeX: 275
- EndNote: 259
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1