the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 11 Jun 2026
Inferring heating and cooling rates at the MLT from multistatic meteor radar observations and intercomparison to SE-WACCM-X and JAWARA
Abstract. Continuous measurements of vertical wind in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere are rare and technically challenging. However, multistatic meteor radar networks, such as the Nordic Meteor Radar Cluster, offer a unique opportunity to use advanced tomographic wind retrieval methods to determine neutral winds, including vertical wind components. The Spherical Volume Velocity Processing technique is a newly developed tomographic algorithm that enables the extraction of Doppler-based vertical winds and the computation of vertical winds from horizontal divergence through vertical integration.
In this study, we present an intercomparison of various vertical wind retrieval methods to evaluate remaining biases and to quantify the magnitude of summer mesospheric vertical upwelling and corresponding downwelling. The retrieved wind data are compared with the Japanese meteorological reanalysis known as JAWARA, as well as a year of free-running SE-WACCM-X model data. Our findings indicate a strong agreement concerning the seasonal patterns of horizontal winds between the Nordic Meteor Radar Cluster and both models. The observed vertical wind velocities range from 2 to 15 cm/s. Additionally, measurements from the Nordic Meteor Radar Cluster show cooling and heating rates of -40 to 100 K/day during summer and 5 to 20 K/day in the winter months.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.
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
(4799 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3156', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Oct 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3156', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Oct 2026
The manuscript presents a valuable observational dataset and a useful comparison with SE-WACCM-X and JAWARA. I have an overall positive assessment and recommend publication after minor revision. My comments mainly concern figure clarity, methodological descriptions, and the precision of several comparisons.
1. Improve the definitions and labeling in Figure 4.
Please identify panels (a) and (b) explicitly as observation-based results, define both bias estimates, and clarify their averaging period and uncertainty. Both curves appear to share the horizontal scale; a general label such as “Vertical wind bias” would improve clarity. For panel (c), specify the normalization, altitude-bin width, and sample period. Use “probability density” only if the histogram is normalized accordingly.
2. Clarify the black curves and shaded regions in Figure 7.
Please state in the caption whether the black curves represent means and describe the averaging and filtering applied. Define the shading mathematically for observations and models separately, specifying whether it represents standard deviation, propagated uncertainty, or another quantity. A brief discussion of its seasonal differences would be useful once the statistical comparability is established.
3. Explain the purpose of comparing 15- and 30-minute retrievals more directly.
Please summarize what this comparison reveals about sampling, regularization, and the stability of seasonal mean vertical winds. Also explain why the 30-minute retrieval is selected for Figure 7.
4. Make the processing and comparison procedures more explicit.
Briefly clarify the debiasing constraint and provide the heating/cooling-rate equation. Explain the different altitude intervals used for radar and model averages, and qualify amplitude comparisons affected by differences in peak altitude. The proposed upper and lower limits should be described as indicative unless strict bounds can be demonstrated.
5. Check the units and interpretation of the SABER comparison.
Yue and Wang (2025) estimate temperature anomalies in K and explicitly distinguish these from heating/cooling rates in K/day. Please verify the sources and units of the quoted values and revise the claim of quantitative validation where necessary. www.sciencedirect.com
6. Make the figures more self-contained and ensure consistency.
Captions should define symbols, data sources, averaging intervals, and uncertainty measures. Please standardize velocity units where practical and resolve the inconsistencies concerning the 250 km radius/diameter, the percentage differences between retrievals, and the reported winter heating rates.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3156-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 241 | 142 | 43 | 426 | 35 | 44 |
- HTML: 241
- PDF: 142
- XML: 43
- Total: 426
- BibTeX: 35
- EndNote: 44
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comments
The paper by Stober et al. uses a multistatic meteor radar network to investigate cooling and heating rates in the MLT. To infer these rates, the authors use estimates of the vertical wind, which is a crucial parameter for understanding and monitoring the dynamical and thermodynamical state of the MLT, while at the same time being a difficult parameter to obtain. To estimate the vertical wind, they applied a recently improved algorithm, the Spherical Volume Velocity Processing (SVVP). Results from the meteor radars observations were also compared with model simulations. The paper is well structured and the results provide important contributions to the monitoring of the dynamics and thermodynamics of the MLT. Prior to publication, however, there are some points that should be addressed and clarified.
Specific comments
Concerning the procedure used to implement calibration and bias correction to obtain w_div. There are some points that should be clarified. Eq (1) gives Δw=w_div-w_ref. w_ref is calculated assuming w=0 from 80 to 100 km. Therefore, w_div=Δw+w_ref for each level, is this correct? If so, a more detailed description of this procedure should be provided in the manuscript.
Regarding the estimates of the cooling/heating rates, the authors should provide more details on how these rates are obtained from the vertical wind. The basic equations used to estimate these rates should be provided in the manuscript.
On page 12, in the analysis of the cooling and heating rates, the authors compare their results with SABER data. However, they do not cite the reference paper used for this comparison.
In the Figure 7, I suggest keeping the same range for the vertical wind and cooling/heating rates.
Technical comments
pag. 4, line 78, "nuetal” ->neutral
pag. 7 line 143 “Here is Δw, the relative…”-> “Here, Δw is the relative..
Fig.2 Does the black continuous line indicate zero wind? If so, this should be informed in the text and in the Figure’s caption.
There are other figures where black lines appear.
Fig.5 Does the black continuous line indicate the March 0.3 threshold?
There are several abbreviations/acronyms whose meanings are either not provided or are not defined at their first occurrence. Example:, MAARSY, PMSE, PANSY in the introduction. HPLA also appears in the introduction, but its meaning is informed in the discussion, at page 14.