the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Concurrent Heat and Intense UV Extremes in North America: Divergent Dynamical Drivers and Exacerbated Ozone Pollution
Abstract. The co-occurrence of extreme heat and intense ultraviolet (UV) radiation poses severe yet insufficiently understood threats to terrestrial ecosystems and public health. Using reanalysis datasets from 1940 to 2022, we reveal the spatiotemporal characteristics and driving mechanisms of compound summer heat-UV events across North America. We identify two primary hotspots: the southwestern United States to northern Mexico, and central-western Canada to the northwestern United States. Dynamically, these events are anchored by anomalous anticyclonic circulations—specifically, the westward expansion of the North Atlantic Subtropical High in the south, and mid-latitude high-pressure ridges in the north. These persistent systems trigger severe soil desiccation, subsidence warming, and significant cloud reductions (up to ~13 %), synergistically amplifying surface temperature and solar UV flux. Furthermore, we demonstrate that this compound extreme substantially accelerates tropospheric photochemical processes, leading to a marked increase in surface ozone concentrations (up to 15.91 ppbv) and shifting the probability distribution toward extreme pollution episodes, primarily in the southern hotspot. Since 1980, the frequency of these compound events has increased significantly by 1.29 events per decade. The significant upward trend of these compound events highlights an intensifying climate-environmental hazard, underscoring the necessity of integrating combined heat, UV, and ozone risks into regional public health and pollution mitigation strategies.
- Preprint
(11915 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1350 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4017', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Aug 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4017', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Sep 2026
General Comments
This study systematically investigates the compound occurrence of extreme heat and intense surface ultraviolet (UV) radiation over North America, identifying two primary geographic hotspots and elucidating their associated synoptic circulation patterns and surface ozone responses. The topic is highly relevant and contributes valuable insights to the growing field of compound climate-environmental risk assessment. The manuscript is logically structured, and the dynamical mechanisms governing these events are well-articulated.
However, to further strengthen the scientific rigor, methodological reproducibility, and the physical completeness of the analysis, I recommend that the authors address the following major and minor points before publication.
Major Comments
- The manuscript identifies extreme events based on an "area-weighted spatial mean" over the study regions. Given the substantial latitudinal spans of the two hotspots (e.g., 15° for the southern center and 10° for the northern center), the convergence of meridians means that the influence of latitude on grid-cell area is non-negligible. The authors must explicitly state whether a cosine-latitude weighting (or exact grid-cell area weighting) was applied, and provide the detailed mathematical formulation in the Supplementary Materials to ensure full methodological reproducibility.
- There is an epistemological gap between the "monthly extreme heat events" used for the composite analyses (Sections 3.1–3.3) and the "daily-scale extreme heat/UV events" utilized for the long-term trend analyses (Section 3.4). The authors are encouraged to add a brief transitional statement at the beginning of Section 3.1 or in the Methods section explaining the rationale behind this dual-scale approach. For instance, clarifying how monthly composites capture persistent synoptic anomalies (like high-pressure ridges) while daily scales better represent transient, high-impact exposure risks would greatly help readers follow the analytical logic.
- In Section 2.2, "hot days" and "intense UV radiation days" are defined as days exceeding the 90th percentile threshold. However, it is not specified whether this percentile is calculated based on an absolute threshold over the entire historical period (1980–2022) or a relative moving threshold for individual years. This distinction is critical in a non-stationary warming climate. The authors must clarify this definition and briefly discuss how their chosen thresholding method captures the anthropogenic warming signal presented in Section 3.4.
- In discussing the fiercely coupled heat-drought feedback loop (Sections 3.1 & 3.2), the analysis relies exclusively on surface volumetric soil water content (SWC). While SWC is a robust proxy for desiccation, the actual physical driver amplifying near-surface temperatures is the altered partitioning of surface energy fluxes (i.e., a drastic shift from latent to sensible heat flux). To provide a more complete thermodynamic picture of the land-atmosphere feedback, the authors should consider briefly examining composite anomalies of surface sensible and latent heat fluxes during these extreme events, or at minimum, incorporate this energy partitioning perspective into the discussion.
- The captions for Figures 2 and 3 state that the "dark cyan contour outlines areas where the mean values during hot years exceed ±1 standard deviation of the climatological mean". Yet, this key graphical feature is largely ignored in the main text. The authors should add a brief description in Section 3.2 addressing the spatial alignment between these ±1σ regions and the central anomaly centers, clarifying whether these contours serve as an objective metric for delineating the "core impact zones" of the compound extremes.
- The study integrates datasets with varying spatial resolutions: ERA5 (0.25°), ERA5-Land (0.1°), and CAMS EAC4 (0.75°). It is not explicitly stated whether the authors pre-interpolated all datasets onto a common grid prior to performing the composite analyses and regional averaging. Please clarify the interpolation scheme (e.g., bilinear interpolation, conservative remapping) in the Data section, and briefly comment on whether remapping from coarser grids (like EAC4) to finer grids introduces any spatial smoothing biases in extreme peak values.
- Figure 6 presents the PDFs of surface ozone concentrations for "Hot Years" and "Normal Years". Because the temperature sensitivity and the specific years identified as "hot" likely differ between the northern and southern centers, the exact sample sizes are ambiguous. Please report the sample sizes (e.g., n = 15) for both categories in each region and month, either in the figure captions or the main text, to allow readers to evaluate the statistical robustness of the PDF estimations.
Minor Comments
- P5, Fig. 1 Caption: The panel reference currently reads "(g-h)", but it should be "(g-i)" as Figure 1 contains panels a through i. Please correct this typographical error.
- P11, Fig. 4 Caption: The specific parameters used for the "Gaussian smoothed" climatological geopotential height are missing. Please specify the standard deviation (σ) or filter window size in the caption to ensure the figure is fully reproducible.
- P13, Fig. 6 & Section 3.3: The manuscript describes a qualitative "rightward shift" in the ozone PDF distributions. This visual observation should be supported by a robust quantitative statistical test. The authors are advised to apply a Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test and annotate the corresponding p-values on the panels to objectively confirm the significance of this distributional shift.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4017-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 160 | 53 | 18 | 231 | 43 | 11 | 11 |
- HTML: 160
- PDF: 53
- XML: 18
- Total: 231
- Supplement: 43
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript examines the summer co-occurrence of heat and intense surface UV radiation over North America, identifies two regional hotspots, and explores the associated circulation patterns and surface ozone variations. The topic is relevant to compound climate-environmental risk and has potential merit. However, several aspects of the event definition and attribution require further clarification and strengthening. In particular, most composites, including the ozone analysis, appear to be conditioned on extreme heat years only; therefore, the respective contributions of concurrent UV extremes and heat require more careful quantification. In addition, the ozone analysis would benefit from a fuller consideration of precursor emissions, chemical sensitivity, and relevant meteorological and chemical processes. Addressing these issues would substantially strengthen the manuscript and support a more robust interpretation of the results.
Major comments
Minor comments