Influence of the spatial distribution of gravity wave activity on the middle atmospheric dynamics

Šácha, Petr; Lilienthal, Friederike; Jacobi, Christoph; Pišoft, Petr

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-15755-2016

Articles | Volume 16, issue 24

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-15755-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-15755-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 16, issue 24

Research article

|

21 Dec 2016

Research article |

| 21 Dec 2016

Influence of the spatial distribution of gravity wave activity on the middle atmospheric dynamics

Petr Šácha, Friederike Lilienthal, Christoph Jacobi, and Petr Pišoft

Download

Final revised paper (published on 21 Dec 2016)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 20 Jul 2016)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of acp-2016-548', Anonymous Referee #3, 10 Aug 2016
- SC1: 'A quick informative response', Petr Šácha, 12 Aug 2016
- AC1: 'Author comment to Ref#3', Petr Šácha, 07 Sep 2016
- AC2: 'Final response to the Ref#3', Petr Šácha, 21 Oct 2016
RC2: 'Review of acp-2016-548, Anonymous Referee #1', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Aug 2016
- SC2: 'A quick response', Petr Šácha, 19 Aug 2016
- AC3: 'Final response to the Ref#1', Petr Šácha, 21 Oct 2016
RC3: 'Reviewer comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Aug 2016
- SC3: 'A quick response', Petr Šácha, 19 Aug 2016
- AC4: 'Final response to the Ref#2', Petr Šácha, 21 Oct 2016

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Petr Šácha on behalf of the Authors (21 Oct 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 Oct 2016) by Martin Dameris

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (06 Nov 2016)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (08 Nov 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This is my second review of the ACPD paper “Influence of the spatial distribution of grav-
ity wave activity on the middle atmospheric circulation and transport” by Sacha et al.. The
manuscript has clearly improved from the previous version, however, I still need to raise a few
points that should be considered before final publication:

1. I think it is the somewhat imprecise use of language that partly disturbs the read of the
interesting paper. Thus, I suggest to go through the manuscript once more to eliminate
such flaws. I listed a few of those below under technical corrections.
2. P5L34: And what does that image show? Describe how it shows the enhanced branch.
3. P5L34-P6L3: I still don’t appreciate this comparison. I can at max guess the points you
make on P13L31-33 from the figures and they are quite speculative. I can hardly see
what’s going on below 15km. It is even harder because you use two different height axes.
I still suggest to remove the entire paragraph.
4. I still find the panels in Fig. 5 are too small.
5.I really like the newly structured Discussion and conclusions section. I think this part
has improved a lot from the old version to this one. There is only one little concern I
have regarding the last paragraph: You should not only focus on non-orographic GWs
longing for an improved representation in climate models. The columnar approach that
is used to describe orographic GW propagation in most models also bears the problem of
misplaced drag through neglection of horizontal propagation. As you mention, this would
also fit better to your study, since you claim that most GW drag in the EA/NP region is of
orographic GW origin.
6. I would remove “and transport” from the header. In my opinion that is implicit in the
term “middle atmospheric circulation” and moreover, the word dangles back there (but
this may just be a question of taste).

Technical corrections:
• P2L31: considered (run a spell checker before submitting!)
• P2L31-33: Rephrase sentence into good english
• P3L27: You are speaking about “layers in the vertical“ here, not of ”vertical layers“ (The
fact that everyone makes it wrong does not make it right.)
• P3L32: Maybe: This is necessary because MUAM does not feature a detailed accounting
of the troposphere, including orography, ...
• P3L38-P4L1: ... and in the simulation with the strongest forcing, its zonal mean locally
reaches magnitudes of around...
• P4L3: ..., but it is ...
• P4L16-19: Too long sentence, split into 2.
• P5L1-2: ... parameters in the same latitude range as the box but across all longitudes
• P5L15: .. simulations, Kalisch et al. (2014) gave an estimate of around 20m/s/day for a
zonally averaged...
• P5L23-25: The directions .... in January is of orographic origin and that the prevailing
horizontal wind direction in the EA/NP region is ???...
• P6L36: of this study?
• P6L37: ”...where it is related...“ what is related?
• P7L29: of exactly what components?
• P9L37: close brackets

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (26 Nov 2016)

ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (28 Nov 2016) by Martin Dameris

AR by Petr Šácha on behalf of the Authors (30 Nov 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (01 Dec 2016) by Martin Dameris

Short summary

With a mechanistic model for the middle and upper atmosphere we performed sensitivity simulations to study a possible impact of a localized GW breaking hotspot in the eastern Asia–northern Pacific region and also the possible influence of the spatial distribution of gravity wave activity on the middle atmospheric circulation and transport. We show implications for polar vortex stability, in situ PW generation and longitudinal variability and strength of the Brewer–Dobson circulation.