the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
In situ observations of gravity waves over tropical cyclone Hinnamnor (2022) suggest that TC gravity wave amplitudes are underestimated in ERA5 reanalysis
Abstract. Tropical cyclones (TCs) are known to regularly excite near-concentric outwardly radiating gravity waves in the lower stratosphere, with horizontal wavelengths of a few hundred kilometers. These disturbances can potentially drive in situ cirrus production, but their amplitudes have been poorly known: satellite observations produce substantially lower amplitudes than those in models or reanalysis, and there have been few aircraft overflights to provide in situ measurements. We present here data from a new TC overflight of supertyphoon Hinnamnor by the NASA WB-57 in 2022 during ACCLIP (the Asian Summer Monsoon Chemical and CLimate Impact Project). Hinnamnor produced a clear and large gravity wave temperature signal in the lower stratosphere, at 9.6 K peak-to-peak, nearly an order of magnitude larger than typical satellite studies and three times as large as in contemporaneous ERA5 reanalysis. The measured value would fall in the 97th percentile in ERA5, based on a sample of 114 summertime TCs in the Western Pacific basin, which produce near-ubiquitous but weaker concentric gravity waves. A metanalysis and comparison of ERA5 to observed winds suggests that both satellite retrievals and reanalysis underestimate TC gravity wave amplitudes because of resolution constraints. Satellite retrievals dampen short-vertical wavelength perturbations, while reanalyses fail to capture the rapid intensification of tropical cyclones that is associated with strong gravity wave production. These results imply that high-resolution measurements are needed to quantify the influence of TC-induced gravity waves on the stratospheric water budget.
- Preprint
(8769 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(9817 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 15 Oct 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4533', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Sep 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 222 | 140 | 59 | 421 | 52 | 51 | 54 |
- HTML: 222
- PDF: 140
- XML: 59
- Total: 421
- Supplement: 52
- BibTeX: 51
- EndNote: 54
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript presents in situ aircraft observation of a large-amplitude gravity wave above TC Hinnamnor and shows that its temperature amplitude is substantially larger than in ERA5. The authors then place Hinnamnor in the context of a larger ERA5 TC sample and show that Hinnamnor is relatively typical in terms of gravity-wave activity. They further show that ERA5 underrepresents rapid TC intensification compared with IBTrACS, and suggest that this may contribute to the weaker gravity-wave amplitudes in ERA5 because rapid intensification is associated with enhanced gravity-wave production.
I appreciated the clarity of the manuscript and the figures.
I have a question about the method :Â
I was wondering if the authors could expend a bit on their definition of the 'background' used to isolate the gravity-wave signal. Subtracting a 2000–2022 daily climatology seems very low frequency to isolate GW. It removes the mean seasonal structure, but I am not sure if it would remove contemporaneous planetary-scale temperature anomalies? These larger-scale signals could still contribute to the variability measured. Could the authors comment on how sensitive the inferred GW amplitudes are to this background definition, or whether a more local or scale-selective detrending would give similar results?
I have a small rewording suggestion regarding the conclusion:
The abstract attributes the weaker gravity-wave amplitudes in reanalysis to resolution constraints, with the argument that ERA5 does not capture rapid TC intensification, which is associated with stronger gravity-wave production. I find this interpretation plausible and consistent with the previous literature cited in the manuscript, but the causal connection is a bit indirect, since near-surface wind speed is not itself the source of the gravity waves generated by TCs in the model. My understanding is that rapid intensification/stronger horizontal winds is being used here as a proxy for stronger convection, deeper heating, or stronger diabatic forcing, which would in turn generate stronger gravity waves? However, the current wording sometimes seems to link the horizontal wind evolution rather directly to gravity-wave production, without always making explicit the intermediate connection to the convective variables that actually control GW generation in ERA5. The abstract and discussion might benefit from slightly changed wording, to distinguish a plausible explanation from a demonstrated mechanism, but this is just a suggestion.