the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A new simple and accurate measure of baroclinicity
Abstract. Baroclinicity is the measure of baroclinic growth rate in the midlatitude storm tracks. Spatially, it defines the genesis region of the storm track and, temporally, it sets the activity of the storm track. Baroclinicity can be quantified with the Eady growth rate, which is proportional to the vertical shear of the zonal wind. This can alternatively be expressed as a meridional gradient of dry entropy via thermal wind balance. Both expressions of the Eady growth rate are equally valid given their derivation under the quasi-geostrophic approximations in which thermal wind balance is assumed. With a focus on the North Atlantic winter storm track, we demonstrate that variability in lower-tropospheric baroclinicity, averaged over a region encompassing the storm track, is determined almost entirely by lower-tropospheric dry entropy to the north of the storm track, with decreases in northward entropy corresponding to increases in baroclinicity. We use physical arguments as well as a linear regression to relate storm track baroclinicity to the mean dry entropy to the north of the storm track, demonstrating that variability in area mean baroclinicity of the storm track is mainly determined by processes on its poleward side, rather than by local-scale internal processes within the storm track itself. It also provides a much simplified physical picture to accurately describe the dynamics of the N. Atlantic storm track.
- Preprint
(4019 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 Jul 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3043', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Jun 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-3043/egusphere-2026-3043-RC1-supplement.pdfReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-3043-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3043', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Jun 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-3043/egusphere-2026-3043-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3043', Florian Zellmer, 10 Jul 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-3043/egusphere-2026-3043-CC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3043', Anonymous Referee #3, 12 Jul 2026
reply
General comments
The present study investigates the mechanisms driving the variability of low-level baroclinicity in the North Atlantic storm track region, by reformulating the Eady growth rate using entropy. Based on their simplified expression of the Eady growth rate derived by the authors, the authors show that most of the variability in lower-level baroclinicity averaged within the storm track region can be explained by low-level entropy at the northern edge of the region. Based on the finding, the present study argues that the area-mean baroclinicity of the storm track is mainly determined by processes on its poleward side, rather than internal processes within the storm track.
I find that the manuscript is overall well written and the topic fits well the scope of the journal, leading to the impression that it could be suitable for publication in WCD. However, revisions are required before the manuscript is ready for publication, as specifically outlined below.
Major comments (not necessarily in order of significance)
- It is not sufficiently explained why the use of sigma_s (and entropy gradient) is better than the more conventional definition (sigma_u and temperature gradient/vertical wind shear), which appears to be the key message of this study. I am confused when I come across the authors’ argument in which entropy gradient is linked to temperature fields (e.g., L216). Please elaborate on the advantage of using sigma_s more clearly.
- L182: I understand that sigma_s and sigma_u may be different in the real atmosphere and it is related to ageostrophy (e.g., super/sub-geostrophy within anticyclones/cyclones). Nevertheless, it is unclear why sigma_s tends to be larger than sigma_u in the upstream region of the storm track (Fig. 1). Can the authors explain this?
- I am concerned about the time scale of the variability of area-mean baroclinicity. As seen in Fig. 3 (faint lines), the entropy variability at the northern edge is dominated by synoptic-scale variability. The present study’s framework is reasonable, as long as the authors’ primary focus is on describing the variability of baroclinicity without separating eddies and their background field. However, the manuscript includes some discussions on the separation, for instance, “baroclinic instabilities are large scale wave instabilities, growing on a baroclinically unstable background” (L123) and “what extent the persistence of horizontal temperature gradients is diabatically forced” (L38-39).
I understand that it is difficult to distinguish eddies and their background in the area-mean baroclinicity with a synoptic-scale variability. Nevertheless, this limitation deserves further discussion. While I agree that the conclusion that “processes outside the storm track region can modify the area mean baroclinicity as long as these processes also modify the mean entropy at the north border of the storm track” (L218-219) is supported by the results, the authors might want to further discuss the separation between eddies and their background. Such a discussion is necessary to address whether or not local-scale internal processes within the storm track itself are important for its development.
Other comments
- L34: In my understanding, latent heating acts to maintain baroclinicity in the free troposphere. Please clarify this.
- L35-36: The part, “a physical understanding of baroclinicity and baroclinic instability depends on a larger-scale perspective in which the unstable mode of a baroclinic wave produces strong vorticity anomalies”, is not easy to understand. Particularly, the meaning of “larger-scale” is ambiguous. Please revise the part.
- L46-47 “this determines synoptic time-scale variability in the storm track, rather than detailed processes within the storm track itself”: I understand that the temperature variability at the northern edge of the Norh Atlantic storm track region is important for baroclinicity within the domain. That said, I reckon that it is a bit too much to argue that it “determines” synoptic-scale variability rather than detailed processes within the storm track itself, as such processes modify temperature fields in the vicinity, to influence temperature variability at the northern edge. This also applies to the conclusion (L215-219).
- L52: Please replace “-105-15E” (and similar ones) with a more conventional notation.
- L67: It seems that a minus sign is lacking in the equation.
- L95: wind shear -> vertical wind shear?
- L137: Eq. (12) assumes that zonal temperature gradient is negligible compared to meridional temperature gradient. This assumption does not generally hold and it would be better to state that it is an assumption.
- L201: It would be more appropriate to add “area-averaged” before “Eady growth rate”.
- In addition to the discussion of latent heating in the free troposphere, there have been many studies showing that western boundary currents and associated sharp SST gradients also play a role in the maintenance and restoration of low-level baroclinicity (e.g., Brayshaw et al. 2011; Hotta and Nakamura 2011). Please add a discussion of these processes.
Miscellaneous
- L33: “analyse to” -> “analyse”?
- L218: these these -> these
References
Brayshaw, D. J., Hoskins, B., & Blackburn, M. (2011). The basic ingredients of the North Atlantic storm track. Part II: Sea surface temperatures. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 68(8), 1784-1805.
Hotta, D., & Nakamura, H. (2011). On the significance of the sensible heat supply from the ocean in the maintenance of the mean baroclinicity along storm tracks. Journal of Climate, 24(13), 3377-3401.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3043-RC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 118 | 33 | 15 | 166 | 13 | 7 |
- HTML: 118
- PDF: 33
- XML: 15
- Total: 166
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1