Neutral atmosphere temperature trends and variability at 90 km,  70&thinsp;°N, 19&thinsp;°E, 2003–2014

Holmen, Silje Eriksen; Hall, Chris M.; Tsutsumi, Masaki

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-7853-2016

Articles | Volume 16, issue 12

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-7853-2016

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-7853-2016

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

Articles | Volume 16, issue 12

Research article

|

27 Jun 2016

Research article |

| 27 Jun 2016

Neutral atmosphere temperature trends and variability at 90 km, 70 °N, 19 °E, 2003–2014

Silje Eriksen Holmen, Chris M. Hall, and Masaki Tsutsumi

Download

Final revised paper (published on 27 Jun 2016)
Preprint (discussion started on 05 Jun 2015)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C4129: 'Review of Holmen et al. (2015)', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Jun 2015
RC C4262: 'referee report', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Jul 2015
RC C4486: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #3, 07 Jul 2015
AC C12122: 'Authors' response to comments on discussion paper acp-2015-326', Silje Holmen, 31 Jan 2016

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Silje Holmen on behalf of the Authors (01 Feb 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Feb 2016) by Gabriele Stiller

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (26 Feb 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Second review of “Neutral atmosphere temperature change at 90 km, 70°N, 19°E, 2003–2014” by Holmen et al.

Comments

1. It is clear that quite a bit of massaging of the data has been necessary to get the temperature time series used in the paper. As far as I can tell, the authors have clearly laid out the steps that they took and the various uncertainties added at each step. I think readers are suitably warned about the reliability of the resulting temperature data and, therefore, I do not have anything more to add about it. Others who analyze similar types of data will be interested in the steps to follow.

2. It seems that my previous review was not clear enough about my concerns with the solar & trend analysis. It is simply not possible to separate these two sources of change during this period. The short data record would be a serious problem for any analysis that is limited to one solar cycle or less. (Note: despite being 11 years, your data span is substantially shorter than the full cycle between the maxima of SS 23 and 24, hence less than one solar cycle.) Because of the strong difference in the solar flux at the beginning and end of your period, there is a marked trend in the F10.7 flux itself. The atmospheric temperature trend (or change; whichever you call it, it is the same problem) and the response to solar variability cannot be separated. This has nothing to do with which analysis technique you use, it is not possible because the two terms you are using as predictors (solar flux and time) are significantly correlated.

3. As per the above comment, the paper should not be published with the trend and solar analysis (Sections 4, 5.2, and 6). If you want to show the deseasonalized data along with the F10.7 flux, that would be OK. If so, it is necessary to acknowledge the ambiguity between possible solar cycle and trend variations. For example, time information could be included in Figure 8 by color-coding based on year. As shown, the figure is not an adequate representation of the solar response and therefore the fits (red and blue lines) are not meaningful. Further analysis to actually define these two responses separately should not be included because it cannot be scientifically supported.

Minor comment

1. (p. 15292, revision near top) Do you mean decreasing concentrations of O3?

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (02 Mar 2016) by Gabriele Stiller

AR by Silje Holmen on behalf of the Authors (13 Apr 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (04 May 2016) by Gabriele Stiller

AR by Silje Holmen on behalf of the Authors (11 May 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (06 Jun 2016) by Gabriele Stiller

AR by Silje Holmen on behalf of the Authors (07 Jun 2016)

Short summary

Atmospheric temperatures at 90 km height above Tromsø, Norway, from 2003 to 2014 have been determined using meteor radar. Periodic oscillations ranging from ~ 9 days to a year were found in the dataset, which were related to the large-scale circulation in the middle atmosphere and with wave activity. A trend analysis was performed, revealing an overall weak cooling trend from 2003 to 2014, which is in line with other recent studies on mesopause region (~ 90 km) temperature trends.

Neutral atmosphere temperature trends and variability at 90 km, 70 °N, 19 °E, 2003–2014

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

Neutral atmosphere temperature trends and variability at 90 km, 70 °N, 19 °E, 2003–2014