the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantification of inmixing of Asian Monsoon air by multi-species classification in a match flight experiment
Abstract. Mixing of air masses between different compartments of the atmosphere is one of the processes ruling atmospheric composition. The mixing process is commonly studied by using tracer-tracer correlations. Here, we generalize this approach by statistical classification methods based on a larger number of tracers to quantify mixing. From the 3-D resolution of our trace gas observations we are able to spatially resolve the observed mixing processes. This paper presents a matching flight-experiment of a filament of Asian monsoon air in the Upper Troposphere/ Lower Stratosphere (UTLS) off the North-American west coast by two flights of the High Altitude and Long Range research aircraft (HALO) conducted during the "Probing High Latitude Export of air from the Asian Summer Monsoon (PHILEAS)" campaign. In both flights the 3-D structure of the filament was revealed by tomographic observations by the Gimballed Limb Observer for Radiance Imaging of the Atmosphere (GLORIA) of five trace species (H2O, PAN, CFC – 12, O3, HNO3). The observed tracer mixing ratios show evidence for a tropopause folding in connection to a Rossby wave breaking event. We show that the strongly perturbed atmospheric situation can not be decisively described by simple tracer-tracer correlations. By using a Bayesian Gaussian mixture model to cluster our observations by similarity we identify five classes of air masses: tropospheric air (both continental and maritime), Asian Summer Monsoon outflow (ASMO), mixed air and stratospheric air. Trajectory calculations are carried out to identify air masses which are observed in both flights. A measure of the mixing strengths of the mixing between both flights follows naturally from this classification. The unique 3-D observations allow us to reveal the spatial structure of the mixing processes in high detail. In particular, the mixing of ASMO air directly with stratospheric air and into the UTLS are shown. Comparing the classification to simulated artificial surface-origin tracers in the Chemical Lagrangian Model of the Stratosphere (CLaMS), we find strong evidence for distinctly correlated air masses to originate within different source regions within the Asian monsoon region.
- Preprint
(14988 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 Apr 2026)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-650', Peter Preusse, 19 Mar 2026
reply
-
CC2: 'Reply on CC1', Peter Preusse, 19 Mar 2026
reply
Publisher’s note: the content of this comment was removed on 20 March 2026 since the comment was posted by mistake.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-650-CC2
-
CC2: 'Reply on CC1', Peter Preusse, 19 Mar 2026
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-650', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Apr 2026
reply
Review of "Quantification of inmixing of Asian Monsoon air by multi-species classification in a match flight experiment" by Kaumanns et al.
Summary:
In this study, Kaumanns et al. present a comprehensive analysis on the inmixing of Asian Monsoon Air sampled during the PHILEAS field campaign. The experiment design is well designed and executed. The dataset provided by the GLORIA retrievals is unique. But before I recommend for the publication, I have some specific questions and comments for the authors.
Major comments:
1. Some important details of the datasets in this study are left out. For example, what is the horizontal and vertical resolution of the GLORIA retrievals? There should also be at least a short section to describe CLaMS model output and ECMWRF ERA5 data. In Figure 3, do you initialize your trajectories from the same vertical level (e.g., flight level, one or multiple levels of the GLORIA retrievals) inside the first hexagon?
2. I cannot fully evaluate the result because some key details of the datasets are missing. Even if the result is robust at all, I would like the authors to reconsider to bring your findings to a bigger picture. The authors analyzed a case study only. And certainly the GLORIA is not widely used yet. So how could your findings benefit to those who study Asian monsoon?
3. I am not familiar with the Gaussian Mixture Model that you propose in this study. You spent several pages to explain your whole data pipeline. But if you want to convince readers to use your method, you have to clearly show the limitation of the (simpler) traditional method first. For example, first plot concentration of some species and compute correlation using the traditional method. Then state its disadvantages. Overall, for your section 2.4, it will be much easier to provide some numbers/examples for readers to understand your method. For example, in your PCA subsection, does M represent the three datasets and does N represent the total number of observation made in each dataset?
4. In Figure 5, what's your value for the dynamical tropopause? If it is not the usual 2 pvu that I see in the literature, please state your value and probably explain it a little bit, instead of referring to Kunz et al. (2015). You refer to it as tropopause folding so I am curious what I can see using normal lapse rate or cold point tropopause.
5. Generally, all 3D plots (e.g., Figures 7, 10, and 12) do not offer much more information than multiple 2D plots. Consider to re-plot them.
6. Could you provide any uncertainty statistics for the results fromm the Gaussian Mixture Model?
7. There are some lightning events shown from GOES-18. But are they enough to quantitatively explain the HNO3 concentration difference?
8. Lastly, there are lots of minor mistakes. See my minor comments for part of the mistakes below. The frequent occurrences disrupt the flow to read the manuscript a lot. Please proofread your manuscript carefully.
Minor comments:
L23: upper tropospheric -> upper-tropospheric
L26: northwards -> to the north
L35: There should be parentheses enclosing the citations. There are similar citation style issues, e.g., L85 and L86. Please fix these.
L49: I don't understand this sentence. The ASM contributes to the ATAL?
L60: for example during -> during, for example,
L63: what time in UTC?
L93: Please revise the sentence.
L104: I think there should be a full stop after "technique".
L104: an -> a
L122: For the Curtis-Godson approximation, you should also cite the Godson 1953 QJRMS paper.
L131: A-priori -> A priori
Figure 2: You should state the time before UTC.
L183-185. Consider to rewrite this sentence. There are two which clauses.
L199: a choosable parameter -> an input parameter.
L270: 250 km vertical resolution seems not reasonable.
L281-282: The two which clauses are confusing. Consider to revise your sentence.
L283: 3-PV. Do you mean 3-PVU?
L304: were -> was
L352: B3. Are you referring to Figure B2?
L588: founding -> funding
L534: Technical data -> Technical details
L535-548: There are three A1 subsections.
Figure A1: Should F13 and F14 be PH13 and PH14 as stated in L63?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-650-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 189 | 71 | 21 | 281 | 15 | 17 |
- HTML: 189
- PDF: 71
- XML: 21
- Total: 281
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Publisher’s note: the content of this comment was removed on 20 March 2026 since the comment was posted by mistake.