First continuous ground-based observations of long period oscillations in the vertically resolved wind field of the stratosphere and mesosphere

Rüfenacht, Rolf; Hocke, Klemens; Kämpfer, Niklaus

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4915-2016

Articles | Volume 16, issue 8

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 4915–4925, 2016

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4915-2016

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

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 4915–4925, 2016

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4915-2016

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

Articles | Volume 16, issue 8

Research article 21 Apr 2016

Research article | 21 Apr 2016

First continuous ground-based observations of long period oscillations in the vertically resolved wind field of the stratosphere and mesosphere

Rolf Rüfenacht et al.

Download

Final revised paper (published on 21 Apr 2016)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 14 Dec 2015)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C11790: 'First continuous ground-based observations of long period oscillations in strato-/mesospheric wind profiles', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Jan 2016
- AC C12754: 'Reply to comments from referee #2', Rolf Rüfenacht, 26 Feb 2016
RC C11896: 'Report on the manuscript by Rüfenacht et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jan 2016
- AC C12755: 'Reply to comments from referee #1', Rolf Rüfenacht, 26 Feb 2016

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Rolf Rüfenacht on behalf of the Authors (26 Feb 2016) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (29 Feb 2016) by Neil Harris

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (03 Mar 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This revised paper outlines the first science results from the campaign use of a single ground-based Doppler radiometer. The potential to record continuous wind measurements in the upper stratosphere and mesosphere is quite unique to this instrument type and could well complement the existing ground-based, air-borne/in situ and satellite observing networks, where direct wind measure- ments are limited to balloons, airplanes, lidar and meteor radar. The authors do well to analyze (admittedly) short time series from the small number sites operating this instrument and report evidence for planetary waves and middle atmosphere wind seasonality. The paper highlights good agreement with ECMWF Operational Analyses within the stratosphere but with important differences above the stratopause. The latter is thought to be due to the paucity of observations assimilated by ECMWF during the times of the WIRA campaign.

The revisions made to the paper are good and mostly address points from the previous review. Pending due consideration of the comments below, I would recommend publication.

Main points:
I reiterate that the authors have done well to address my points from the previous review and the paper now is solid. However, having reread the paper, I still do not have an idea for what observations are going into the ECMWF OA in the upper stratosphere and mesosphere as shown in figures 3,4,6 and 7. Information on what relevant observations there are and when they were included is required (say at 1hPa and above). The inclusion of new observations during an extended period of time can introduce sudden jumps in the time domain of climate fields (so in then light of the present analysis, these need to be checked). Perhaps the authors could supply the equivalent of figure 1, but for the ECMWF OA, in the Supplement.

Other point, the authors have chosen to retain the Lomb-Scargle theory in the paper. I suggest that the authors check the journal guidelines on mathematical typesetting. I (and probably most of the Journal's readers) do not recognise the usage of two symbols (e.g. the use of hashes in equation 4, and the caret symbol in equations 2 and 3).

Finally, I still do not like the use of "strato-mesospheric" in the title (middle atmosphere or stratosphere-mesosphere would be much better and are recognisable). Authors call on this one.

Minor points:
(35044, L27) "measurements"
(35045, L20) "...in detail." A reference to the spectral gravity wave scheme could also be added (e.g. Scinocca, 2003). The background to the gravity wave scheme used in the IFS model used in the Operational Analysis dataset can be found at

http://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2010/9233-part-iv-physical-processes.pdf

Also, perhaps the authors should replace "upward momentum transport" with upward transport of horizontal momentum from resolved and parametrised waves.

(35046, L3) suggest: "and/or seasonally dependent" or "and/or seasonally constrained"
(35047, L1) Capitalise Northern Hemisphere

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (08 Mar 2016)

ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (16 Mar 2016) by Neil Harris

Please look at the second set of comments from reviewer 1 (below) and either do as suggested or give a clear reason why not.
Neil

Main points:
I reiterate that the authors have done well to address my points from the previous review and the paper now is solid. However, having reread the paper, I still do not have an idea for what observations are going into the ECMWF OA in the upper stratosphere and mesosphere as shown in figures 3,4,6 and 7. Information on what relevant observations there are and when they were included is required (say at 1hPa and above). The inclusion of new observations during an extended period of time can introduce sudden jumps in the time domain of climate fields (so in then light of the present analysis, these need to be checked). Perhaps the authors could supply the equivalent of figure 1, but for the ECMWF OA, in the Supplement.

Other point, the authors have chosen to retain the Lomb-Scargle theory in the paper. I suggest that the authors check the journal guidelines on mathematical typesetting. I (and probably most of the Journal's readers) do not recognise the usage of two symbols (e.g. the use of hashes in equation 4, and the caret symbol in equations 2 and 3).

Finally, I still do not like the use of "strato-mesospheric" in the title (middle atmosphere or stratosphere-mesosphere would be much better and are recognisable). Authors call on this one.

Minor points:
(35044, L27) "measurements"
(35045, L20) "...in detail." A reference to the spectral gravity wave scheme could also be added (e.g. Scinocca, 2003). The background to the gravity wave scheme used in the IFS model used in the Operational Analysis dataset can be found at

http://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2010/9233-part-iv-physical-processes.pdf

Also, perhaps the authors should replace "upward momentum transport" with upward transport of horizontal momentum from resolved and parametrised waves.

(35046, L3) suggest: "and/or seasonally dependent" or "and/or seasonally constrained"
(35047, L1) Capitalise Northern Hemisphere

Hide

AR by Rolf Rüfenacht on behalf of the Authors (07 Apr 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (09 Apr 2016) by Neil Harris

Short summary

We quantitatively analyze oscillations with periods from 5 to 50 days in horizontal wind profiles between mid-stratosphere and mesopause based on more than 44 months of data from high, mid- and low latitudes measured by a novel instrument. For the first time, long time series of continuous wind measurements allow direct observations of dynamics throughout this altitude range. The observations agree remarkably well with the ECMWF model in the stratosphere but discrepancies exist in the mesosphere.