the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Long-term Study of Gravity Wave Potential Energy and OH Airglow Emissions from 22 years of TIMED/SABER Observations
Abstract. Using 22 years (2002–2023) of TIMED/SABER satellite observations, we investigate the long-term coupling between mesospheric hydroxyl (OH) airglow and gravity wave potential energy (Ep). Continuous wavelet transform analysis extracts gravity wave signatures from temperature perturbations, and multiple linear regression decomposes the observed variability into contributions from solar activity, geomagnetic activity, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO), and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Three major findings emerge. First, OH emissions and gravity wave Ep are positively coupled, with statistically significant (p < 0.05) correlation coefficients of 0.3–0.7 that peak during winter at mid-latitudes. Second, long-term trends reveal contrasting latitudinal patterns: OH trends are negative at mid-latitudes in both hemispheres (−1 to −5 × 10-10 W m-3 yr-1), consistent with mesospheric cooling, whereas Ep trends are positive at mid-latitudes (up to 5.3 × 10-2 J kg-1 yr-1), exceeding current model predictions. Both quantities show weaker trends near the equator. Third, a novel decomposition methodology separates temperature-driven chemical responses from non-thermal dynamical effects, revealing that solar forcing operates primarily through thermal mechanisms and accounts for 10–15 % of OH variance, while QBO and ENSO influence mesospheric chemistry through dynamical pathways. ENSO drives negative OH responses yet enhances Ep, and QBO responses exhibit equatorial–midlatitude dipole patterns. Semi-annual oscillations dominate equatorial variability, while annual oscillations prevail at Southern Hemisphere mid-latitudes.
- Preprint
(19985 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Apr 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1038', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Mar 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Toyese Tunde Ayorinde, 31 Mar 2026
reply
Response to Reviewer Comments
Long-term Study of Gravity Wave Potential Energy and OH Airglow Emissions from 22 years of TIMED/SABER ObservationsWe thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments. Below, we address each comment individually.
Reviewer 1
Reviewer Comment: The authors provide a solid study of correlations between gravity wave potential energy and airglow parameters using 22 years of SABER data. They also analyze trends and separate responses to different forcing factors. I found the article very interesting and suitable for publication after some minor revisions (see specific comments below). My main concern here is the 22 years of the SABER dataset, especially for analyzing solar activity impact. This limitation should be clarified in the article.
Author Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment and the important point regarding the dataset time span. We have added a paragraph in Section 3.3 (Latitudinal Profiles of Trends and Solar Responses) explicitly acknowledging this limitation. The added text is shown below.
Comment 1 (Lines 257-258)
Reviewer Comment: Could it also be due to differences in the gravity wave environment?
Author Response: We agree with the reviewer that differences in the gravity wave environment between the two hemispheres could contribute to the observed hemispheric asymmetry in Ep seasonal cycles. We have added the following sentence to the discussion of hemispheric Ep differences in Section 3.2:Correction in manuscript: "Additionally, differences in the gravity wave environment between the two hemispheres, including the distribution of topographic features, jet stream characteristics, and convective activity. This may contribute to the observed hemispheric asymmetry in Ep (Ern et al., 2018; Geller et al., 2013)."
Comment 2 (Lines 300-301)
Reviewer Comment: The authors should briefly comment on the time span (22 years), which is generally too short to perform trend analysis. For solar activity impact, it should be pointed out that the solar cycles covered here had very different magnitudes, especially cycles 23 and 24.
Author Response: We fully agree with this important point. We have added a paragraph at the beginning of Section 3.3 (Latitudinal Profiles of Trends and Solar Responses) that explicitly acknowledges the limitation of the 22 years for trend analysis and notes the different magnitudes of solar cycles 23 and 24 :
Correction in manuscript: "We note that a 22 -year time span, while among the longest continuous satellite records available for mesospheric studies, covers only approximately two solar cycles and is generally considered short for robust trend analysis. Moreover, the solar cycles covered here (cycles 23 and 24 ) had markedly different magnitudes, with cycle 24 being considerably weaker than cycle 23, which may affect the separation of solar-driven variability from long-term trends in the MLR analysis (Laštovička, 2017). These limitations should be kept in mind when interpreting the trend and solar response results presented below."
Comment 3 (Line 336)
Reviewer Comment: Not sure if "dipole" is a relevant term here. I assume the authors mean opposite responses at the equator and at mid-latitudes.
Author Response: We agree that "dipole" is not the most appropriate term in this context. We have replaced all instances of "dipole" with clearer language describing the opposite responses between the equator and mid-latitudes. The corrections were made in the abstract, Section 3.4, and Section 4 (Discussion):
Correction in manuscript:
- Abstract: "...and QBO responses exhibit opposite patterns between the equator and mid-latitudes." (previously: "equatorial-midlatitude dipole patterns")
- Section 3.4: "The OH response to the QBO ...shows opposite responses between the equator and midlatitudes." (previously: "shows a dipole between the equator and midlatitudes")
- Section 4: "The QBO response ...shows opposite OH responses at the equator and at mid-latitudes, with QBO30 producing ..." (previously: "shows an equatorial midlatitude dipole")
Comment 4 (Line 392 and further in the text)
Reviewer Comment: Probably the authors mean 85-90 km, not degrees.
Author Response: We thank the reviewer for catching this typographical error. Indeed, the altitudes should be expressed in km, not in degrees. The ang command was incorrectly applied to altitude values in Section 3.6. We have corrected all instances where altitude values were erroneously formatted with the degree symbol:Correction in manuscript: All altitude references in Section 3.6 have been corrected from " " to " ", " " to " ", and similar corrections for 90 km throughout the paragraph.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1038-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Toyese Tunde Ayorinde, 31 Mar 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 115 | 42 | 17 | 174 | 10 | 14 |
- HTML: 115
- PDF: 42
- XML: 17
- Total: 174
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The authors provide a solid study of correlations between gravity wave potential energy and airglow parameters using 22 years of SABER data. They also analyze trends and separate responses to different forcing factors. I found the article very interesting and suitable for publication after some minor revisions (see specific comments below). My main concern here is the 22-year time span of the SABER dataset, especially for analyzing solar activity impact. This limitation should be clarified in the article.
257-258: Could it be also due to differences in gravity wave environment?
300-301: The authors should briefly comment on the time span (22 years), which is generally too short to perform trend analysis. For solar activity impact, it should be pointed out that the solar cycles covered here had very different magnitudes, especially cycles 23 and 24.
336: Not sure if “dipole” is a relevant term here. I assume the authors mean opposite OH responses at the equator and at mid-latitudes.
392 and further in the text: Probably the authors mean 85-90 km, not degrees.