Dynamics of the Asian Summer Monsoon Anticyclone: Insights from Potential Vorticity Tendency Diagnostics

Li, Ninghui; Wright, Jonathon S.; Rupp, Philip; Ming, Alison; Zhang, Shenglong; Gao, Jie

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-558

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558

Preprints

04 Feb 2026

| 04 Feb 2026

Dynamics of the Asian Summer Monsoon Anticyclone: Insights from Potential Vorticity Tendency Diagnostics

Ninghui Li, Jonathon S. Wright, Philip Rupp, Alison Ming, Shenglong Zhang, and Jie Gao

Abstract. The Asian Summer Monsoon Anticyclone (ASMA) is a dominant circulation in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS) during boreal summer and exhibits pronounced temporal and spatial variability. While its time-mean structure and climatological characteristics are well documented, the mechanisms governing its temporal evolution, particularly its eastward and westward propagation, episodic eddy-shedding events, and the emergence of multimodal behavior are remaining incompletely understood. Using multiple reanalysis datasets (JRA-3Q, ERA5, MERRA-2) from 2000–2020, this study analyzes the dynamic structures of the ASMA, the analysis shows that the ASMA exhibits a trimodal structure with centers over the Iranian Plateau, Tibetan Plateau, and western Pacific, identified via a multi-center vortex tracking algorithm applied to the 370 K isentropic surface to distinguish persistent and transient anticyclones. Further results show that mean zonal and meridional advection are the primary drivers of potential vorticity (PV) tendency, while total diabatic heating that plays a crucial modulating role in ASMA evolution. A key contribution of this work lies in the formulation and application of an ASMA-specific PV tendency diagnostic, which builds upon established PV budget and enables a more rigorous quantification of the respective roles of dynamical and thermodynamical processes in the anticyclone's intensification and zonal propagation across its three modes. This diagnostic decomposes total PV tendency into dynamic components (e.g., horizontal and vertical advection) and thermodynamic components (e.g., latent heating and background radiation), enabling the separation of the combined effects of anticyclone propagation and intensification by capturing a characteristic tripole pattern of PV tendency. Compared to conventional methods, this new diagnostic provides a more rigorous and precise quantification of the physical processes governing the ASMA's zonal movements and overall development, thereby advancing our scientific understanding of the ASMA's variability and underlying mechanisms in the UTLS region.

Received: 30 Jan 2026 – Discussion started: 04 Feb 2026

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.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 31924 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (31924 KB)

Supplement (507 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

28 Sep 2026

Dynamics of the Asian Summer Monsoon Anticyclone: insights from potential vorticity tendency diagnostics

Ninghui Li, Jonathon S. Wright, Philip Rupp, Alison Ming, Shenglong Zhang, and Jie Gao

Weather Clim. Dynam., 7, 1853–1874, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-7-1853-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-7-1853-2026, 2026

Short summary

Ninghui Li, Jonathon S. Wright, Philip Rupp, Alison Ming, Shenglong Zhang, and Jie Gao

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-558', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Mar 2026

The study by Li et al. investigates the dynamics of the Asian monsoon upper-level anticyclone (ASMA) based on three different reanalysis datasets (JRA-3Q, ERA5, MERRA-2) and using vortex tracking and PV tendency diagnostics. It is argued that the ASMA exhibits a trimodal structure, with ASMA centers frequently occurring over the Iranian and Tibetan Plateaus and the Western Pacific, respectively. The analysis further shows that mean horizontal advection is the primary driver of the PV tendency in the ASMA region, with additional modulations due to diabatic heating.
I find the topic of the study, understanding ASMA dynamics, very relevant and clearly within the scope of the journal. However, I see two major issues with the current manuscript, regarding (1) the overall comprehensibility and fluency of the main text and (2) the comprehensibility and clarity of the method description (as further explained below). Because of these issues I'm not able to follow and fully understand the study based on the current manuscript version, and can't provide a full review and asssess the scientific value at this time. Therefore, I recommend rejection but encourage resubmission after the paper had been carefully revised.
In the following, I give a few specific examples which led me to this recommendation. These examples primarily come from the earlier sections of the paper, but in my opinion, the descriptions in the later sections also lack clarity. Therefore, the authors should not only address the following examples but also carefully review the entire paper before resubmission.
1.) Comprehensibility and fluency of the main text:
Overall, I see several places where the wording needs to be improved. A few examples are provided below, but there are many additional issues throughout the paper which make it very difficult to read and understand what is actually meant. I would recommend a thorough language edit, e.g. by the native English speakers among the co-authors. Here a selection of a few examples:
L5: Split the sentence "Using multiple ..." into two.

L8: I don't fully understand the "... while ... that ..." construction in this sentence.

L46: I think the grammar in the sentence "... eddy-shedding behavior that the ..." is not correct.

L56: diagnosticS

L102: Either "zero-wind contours are" or "zero-wind contour is", not a mixture of both.

L106: "Montgomery stream function" or "... potential".

L115: Same.

Fig. 1, caption: grid point closesT

L120: Sentence structure in "... search window that ..."

L124: centerS

L126: Think there should be an "and" after "anticyclonic" and a "the" before "Northern".

L127: must be of / characterized by ...

L144: "local rate of change" of what?

L144: I don't understand the construct "isentropic density of pressure p with potential temperature"

L151: Similarly for the sentence "Also, the Psi has a relationship with p and has a formula by Exner function..."

L154: Sentence incomplete: "Based on the momentum and continuity equations on the isentropic surface."

L155: Sentence structure confusing.

L159: What is meant by "the quantity conserved adiabatic-frictionless flow"?

L188: Rethink the wording in "due to the wind blowing different values of PV ...".
2.) Comprehensibility and clarity of the method description:
I found the methods section extremely difficult to understand, likely due to the lack of text fluency mentioned earlier, as well as an unclear structure and ambiguities in the description of formulas and mathematical symbols. This made it challenging to fully grasp the methodology, and consequently, hindered my ability to assess the rest of the paper. I strongly recommend improving the methods section to enhance clarity. Below are a few examples where I struggled to understand the content:
L87ff: The levels used for the analysis should be also described.
L91: How is latent heating explicitly calculated? It would be good to describe that in detail here and also present the respective formula and show the resulting distribution.
Section 3.1: The entire description of the "vortex tracking" is difficult to follow and understand. I suggest to include a bullet point list of the individual steps, in addition to the other specific points below.
Eq. 1 and following paragraph: I don't fully understand the notation here. i is the index of the grid point. The zero-wind contour not necessarily passes through the grid points - so why should any grid point lie on the contour? Hence, to me "s_i is the distance along the contour, e.g. from point x(i-1) to x(i)..." seems not well-defined. Maybe I misunderstand something here? Please clarify, and perhaps include the x(i), s_i, ... also into Fig. 1 to enhance clarity.
L133: After having read the "Vortex tracking" section I'm still unsure how the tracking of vortices was exactly done. Please describe clearly how the vortices diagnosed at different times are related to identify connected tracks.
L153: I think R_d should be the gas constant not specific heat?
L158: The (Joseph, 1981) is surely not the original paper to cite here. Similarly for the citations in L162.
Eq. 7: What is the Q on the right-hand side of the equation exactly? The text says "Q is total diabatic heating". In most text books, Q denotes the diabatic heating rate, with units K/day. But this can not be meant here, as the units wouldn't match. The PV tendency equation should include a diabatic forcing term including also derivatives of the diabatic heating rate and I guess this term is meant here with Q - but this is not said. This is just one example of the inconsistent notation that appears throughout the paper, making it nearly impossible for the reader to fully understand the methodology.
Eq. 8: Why is the vertical advection term not expanded into mean plus fluctuation?
L184ff: Clearly explain at the beginning of this paragraph that and why isentropic coordinates are considered in the following (e.g. their advantages for the analysis). Then explain the differences to the pressure coordinate version of the equations. Furthermore, why is the isentropic version of the PV tendency equation not given in its version decomposed into mean state and fluctuation?
L185: "Therefore, the second term ..." comes after Eq. 8 without further explanation. Therefore, the reader thinks that the second term in Eq 8 is meant. However, I guess what is indeed meant is the second term in Eq. 6... ? Similarly for "expression" in L186 it is not clear which expression.
L279ff: Here, one example from the later parts of the paper. L280 states that q_dev is the "minimum PV inside each box", while L286 states that "q_int and q_prop are the PV tendencies". As Eq. 11 relates both, there seems to be a mismatch to me: Is it PV or PV tendency here?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ninghui Li, 08 Apr 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-558/egusphere-2026-558-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558-AC1
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Ninghui Li, 22 Jun 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-558/egusphere-2026-558-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558-AC3
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-558', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Apr 2026

Please find the comments in the attachment.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ninghui Li, 28 May 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-558/egusphere-2026-558-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558-AC2
- AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Ninghui Li, 22 Jun 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-558/egusphere-2026-558-AC4-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558-AC4

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Ninghui Li on behalf of the Authors (28 May 2026)

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (07 Jun 2026) by Juliane Schwendike

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (26 Jun 2026)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (06 Aug 2026)

For final publication, the manuscript should be

accepted as is

accepted subject to technical corrections

accepted subject to minor revisions

reconsidered after major revisions

rejected

Were a revised manuscript to be sent for another round of reviews:

I would be willing to review the revised manuscript.

I would not be willing to review the revised manuscript.

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I see that the authors have done a real effort to improve the manuscript, and have also addressed most of my previous comments well. Nevertheless, I still have several comments (given below). I'd rate them somewhere between major and minor, ticked minor but would strongly recommend to consider them before publication, to further improve the paper.

Minor comments:

1. Method decription:

I do find the description of the methods clearly improved in this revised version. However, at some parts I'm still struggling with the method description.

* One example is the identification of vortex centers along the zero-wind contour (L107ff). Could you explain in more detail how the u=0 contour is found and parametrized? Specifically, how are the points on this contour defined - which are all, except (x1, y1) not grid points of the reanalysis (see Fig. 1). The arc-length steps s_i in Fig. 1 don't seem equal to me.

* How is the connection between two identified vortices at subsequent time steps (the "tracking" procedure) exactly done (L130ff)? Some studies use trajectory techniques for that relation (e.g. Clemens et al., 2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-3841-2022; Portmann et al., 2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-507-
2021), but it is not clear to me from the text what is done here.

* Another example concerns Eq. 8: Please explain in the manuscript why the vertical advection and diabatic heating terms are not expanded. In the response letter there is some related explanation, but for readers this should also be in the paper. Please explain also why the mean advection term \bar(v)\partial_y\bar(q) vanishes.

2. Discussion of PV tendencies:

The discussion of the PV tendencies seems still somewhat confusing to me. What I would find helpful here is:

* Comparison of the total PV-tendency (Fig. 5d) to the sum of all terms on the rhs of Eq 8 or 10, to see how well the calculated budget is closed. This would be important for the interpretation of the effects of the calculated terms.

* Related is the question about the dominant contributions to PV-tendency. As the different terms largely compensate (in particular the horizontal advection terms), the net total tendency results as a residual from large opposite terms and hence I find it difficult to conclude which terms are the dominant ones.

* A clearer discussion of the structure of the calculated tendencies (e.g. Figs. 5, S2) in terms of propagation and intensification of the anticyclone. E.g. the total tendency in Fig. 5d shows a clear dipole pattern with positive values to the west and negative values to the right of the anticyclone center. Shouldn't this mean that the vortices always strengthen at their eastern side and weaken at their western side, so move eastward? Maybe I misunderstand something here? Also, it would be great to have an explanation what the tripolar structure in PV-tendency terms exactly means for the dynamics of the anticyclone regarding propagation and intensification (Fig. 5d and L243ff; Fig. S2; L274ff).

* Also, I miss explanation concerning the structure of the different PV-tendency terms (L234ff). The structure of meridional advection (negative to the west, positive to the right of the anticyclone core) is more easily understandable given the structure of anticyclonic flow and the PV background gradient. So perhaps start with explaining that, and thereafter also the other terms in more detail. And please also add references to the respective subfigures the text is related to.

* Why does the tripolar pattern of PV-tendencies indicate a process of intensification (L286ff)? In contrast, in L339 it is said "tripolar PV tendency structure (positive near the centre and negative to the east and west) governs the zonal propagation of the anticyclone". Regarding the discussion following L286: Why is the center of the anticyclone (red box in Fig. S2) defined as is? To me this red box seems more to be on the western side of the anticyclone center. A clearer reasoning would be helpful here.

Specific comments and technical corrections

L61: blank missing: frominherited

Fig. 1 / caption / 2nd line: closes --> closest

L155: Perhaps simplify sentence to "particularly useful to conserved adiabatic-frictionless flow"

L190: Explain in the text what the variables mttpm, mttswr, mttlwr exactly are, as this is likely not clear to all readers.

Fig. 3: What exactly is the quantity shown in the figure? If it is simply vortex counts calculated over the period 2000-2020, then e.g. Fig. 3a would indicate that there are about 2 vortices present each time instance at 45E on 5th July (count is around 40). Shouldn't there be at most one vortex per time instance? Maybe I do misunderstand something here - please clarify the description of the figure.

L235: The text says that "vertical advection is positive near the core and
negative farther eastward", but Fig. 5c rather indicates a dipole pattern with positive tendency to the west and negative tendency to the right. Please clarify what is meant here.

L282: Check wording in "the propagation and intensification are both account for the anticyclone"

L302: I guess the reference here should be to Eq. 10 (not 8), as the discussion is related to 370K isentrope.

Hide

EF by Anna Mirena Feist-Polner (22 Jun 2026) Manuscript Author's response Author's tracked changes Supplement

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (19 Aug 2026) by Juliane Schwendike

AR by Ninghui Li on behalf of the Authors (30 Aug 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (01 Sep 2026) by Juliane Schwendike

AR by Ninghui Li on behalf of the Authors (02 Sep 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (02 Sep 2026) by Juliane Schwendike

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (08 Sep 2026)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (08 Sep 2026) by Juliane Schwendike

AR by Ninghui Li on behalf of the Authors (09 Sep 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (10 Sep 2026) by Juliane Schwendike

AR by Ninghui Li on behalf of the Authors (13 Sep 2026) Manuscript

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-558', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Mar 2026

The study by Li et al. investigates the dynamics of the Asian monsoon upper-level anticyclone (ASMA) based on three different reanalysis datasets (JRA-3Q, ERA5, MERRA-2) and using vortex tracking and PV tendency diagnostics. It is argued that the ASMA exhibits a trimodal structure, with ASMA centers frequently occurring over the Iranian and Tibetan Plateaus and the Western Pacific, respectively. The analysis further shows that mean horizontal advection is the primary driver of the PV tendency in the ASMA region, with additional modulations due to diabatic heating.
I find the topic of the study, understanding ASMA dynamics, very relevant and clearly within the scope of the journal. However, I see two major issues with the current manuscript, regarding (1) the overall comprehensibility and fluency of the main text and (2) the comprehensibility and clarity of the method description (as further explained below). Because of these issues I'm not able to follow and fully understand the study based on the current manuscript version, and can't provide a full review and asssess the scientific value at this time. Therefore, I recommend rejection but encourage resubmission after the paper had been carefully revised.
In the following, I give a few specific examples which led me to this recommendation. These examples primarily come from the earlier sections of the paper, but in my opinion, the descriptions in the later sections also lack clarity. Therefore, the authors should not only address the following examples but also carefully review the entire paper before resubmission.
1.) Comprehensibility and fluency of the main text:
Overall, I see several places where the wording needs to be improved. A few examples are provided below, but there are many additional issues throughout the paper which make it very difficult to read and understand what is actually meant. I would recommend a thorough language edit, e.g. by the native English speakers among the co-authors. Here a selection of a few examples:
L5: Split the sentence "Using multiple ..." into two.

L8: I don't fully understand the "... while ... that ..." construction in this sentence.

L46: I think the grammar in the sentence "... eddy-shedding behavior that the ..." is not correct.

L56: diagnosticS

L102: Either "zero-wind contours are" or "zero-wind contour is", not a mixture of both.

L106: "Montgomery stream function" or "... potential".

L115: Same.

Fig. 1, caption: grid point closesT

L120: Sentence structure in "... search window that ..."

L124: centerS

L126: Think there should be an "and" after "anticyclonic" and a "the" before "Northern".

L127: must be of / characterized by ...

L144: "local rate of change" of what?

L144: I don't understand the construct "isentropic density of pressure p with potential temperature"

L151: Similarly for the sentence "Also, the Psi has a relationship with p and has a formula by Exner function..."

L154: Sentence incomplete: "Based on the momentum and continuity equations on the isentropic surface."

L155: Sentence structure confusing.

L159: What is meant by "the quantity conserved adiabatic-frictionless flow"?

L188: Rethink the wording in "due to the wind blowing different values of PV ...".
2.) Comprehensibility and clarity of the method description:
I found the methods section extremely difficult to understand, likely due to the lack of text fluency mentioned earlier, as well as an unclear structure and ambiguities in the description of formulas and mathematical symbols. This made it challenging to fully grasp the methodology, and consequently, hindered my ability to assess the rest of the paper. I strongly recommend improving the methods section to enhance clarity. Below are a few examples where I struggled to understand the content:
L87ff: The levels used for the analysis should be also described.
L91: How is latent heating explicitly calculated? It would be good to describe that in detail here and also present the respective formula and show the resulting distribution.
Section 3.1: The entire description of the "vortex tracking" is difficult to follow and understand. I suggest to include a bullet point list of the individual steps, in addition to the other specific points below.
Eq. 1 and following paragraph: I don't fully understand the notation here. i is the index of the grid point. The zero-wind contour not necessarily passes through the grid points - so why should any grid point lie on the contour? Hence, to me "s_i is the distance along the contour, e.g. from point x(i-1) to x(i)..." seems not well-defined. Maybe I misunderstand something here? Please clarify, and perhaps include the x(i), s_i, ... also into Fig. 1 to enhance clarity.
L133: After having read the "Vortex tracking" section I'm still unsure how the tracking of vortices was exactly done. Please describe clearly how the vortices diagnosed at different times are related to identify connected tracks.
L153: I think R_d should be the gas constant not specific heat?
L158: The (Joseph, 1981) is surely not the original paper to cite here. Similarly for the citations in L162.
Eq. 7: What is the Q on the right-hand side of the equation exactly? The text says "Q is total diabatic heating". In most text books, Q denotes the diabatic heating rate, with units K/day. But this can not be meant here, as the units wouldn't match. The PV tendency equation should include a diabatic forcing term including also derivatives of the diabatic heating rate and I guess this term is meant here with Q - but this is not said. This is just one example of the inconsistent notation that appears throughout the paper, making it nearly impossible for the reader to fully understand the methodology.
Eq. 8: Why is the vertical advection term not expanded into mean plus fluctuation?
L184ff: Clearly explain at the beginning of this paragraph that and why isentropic coordinates are considered in the following (e.g. their advantages for the analysis). Then explain the differences to the pressure coordinate version of the equations. Furthermore, why is the isentropic version of the PV tendency equation not given in its version decomposed into mean state and fluctuation?
L185: "Therefore, the second term ..." comes after Eq. 8 without further explanation. Therefore, the reader thinks that the second term in Eq 8 is meant. However, I guess what is indeed meant is the second term in Eq. 6... ? Similarly for "expression" in L186 it is not clear which expression.
L279ff: Here, one example from the later parts of the paper. L280 states that q_dev is the "minimum PV inside each box", while L286 states that "q_int and q_prop are the PV tendencies". As Eq. 11 relates both, there seems to be a mismatch to me: Is it PV or PV tendency here?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ninghui Li, 08 Apr 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-558/egusphere-2026-558-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558-AC1
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Ninghui Li, 22 Jun 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-558/egusphere-2026-558-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558-AC3
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-558', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Apr 2026

Please find the comments in the attachment.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ninghui Li, 28 May 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-558/egusphere-2026-558-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558-AC2
- AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Ninghui Li, 22 Jun 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-558/egusphere-2026-558-AC4-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558-AC4

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Ninghui Li on behalf of the Authors (28 May 2026)

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (07 Jun 2026) by Juliane Schwendike

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (26 Jun 2026)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (06 Aug 2026)

For final publication, the manuscript should be

accepted as is

accepted subject to technical corrections

accepted subject to minor revisions

reconsidered after major revisions

rejected

Were a revised manuscript to be sent for another round of reviews:

I would be willing to review the revised manuscript.

I would not be willing to review the revised manuscript.

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Hide

EF by Anna Mirena Feist-Polner (22 Jun 2026) Manuscript Author's response Author's tracked changes Supplement

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (19 Aug 2026) by Juliane Schwendike

AR by Ninghui Li on behalf of the Authors (30 Aug 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (01 Sep 2026) by Juliane Schwendike

AR by Ninghui Li on behalf of the Authors (02 Sep 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (02 Sep 2026) by Juliane Schwendike

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (08 Sep 2026)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (08 Sep 2026) by Juliane Schwendike

AR by Ninghui Li on behalf of the Authors (09 Sep 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (10 Sep 2026) by Juliane Schwendike

AR by Ninghui Li on behalf of the Authors (13 Sep 2026) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

28 Sep 2026

Dynamics of the Asian Summer Monsoon Anticyclone: insights from potential vorticity tendency diagnostics

Ninghui Li, Jonathon S. Wright, Philip Rupp, Alison Ming, Shenglong Zhang, and Jie Gao

Weather Clim. Dynam., 7, 1853–1874, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-7-1853-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-7-1853-2026, 2026

Short summary

Ninghui Li, Jonathon S. Wright, Philip Rupp, Alison Ming, Shenglong Zhang, and Jie Gao

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-558-supplement

Ninghui Li, Jonathon S. Wright, Philip Rupp, Alison Ming, Shenglong Zhang, and Jie Gao

Viewed

Total article views: 2,053 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
1,179	748	126	2,053	298	258	302

HTML: 1,179
PDF: 748
XML: 126
Total: 2,053
Supplement: 298
BibTeX: 258
EndNote: 302

Views and downloads (calculated since 04 Feb 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2026	587	271	62	920
Mar 2026	300	175	31	506
Apr 2026	109	117	6	232
May 2026	30	65	0	95
Jun 2026	5	5	2	12
Jul 2026	34	71	2	107
Aug 2026	20	18	8	46
Sep 2026	73	22	9	104
Oct 2026	21	4	6	31

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 04 Feb 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2026	587	271	62	920
Mar 2026	300	175	31	506
Apr 2026	109	117	6	232
May 2026	30	65	0	95
Jun 2026	5	5	2	12
Jul 2026	34	71	2	107
Aug 2026	20	18	8	46
Sep 2026	73	22	9	104
Oct 2026	21	4	6	31

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,959 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,959 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 11 Oct 2026

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (31924 KB)
Metadata XML


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0