Influence of geomagnetic activity on mesopause temperature over Yakutia

Gavrilyeva, Galina; Ammosov, Petr

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3363-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3363-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3363-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 5

Research article

|

08 Mar 2018

Research article |

| 08 Mar 2018

Influence of geomagnetic activity on mesopause temperature over Yakutia

Galina Gavrilyeva and Petr Ammosov

Download

Final revised paper (published on 08 Mar 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 04 Oct 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Oct 2017
- AC1: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #2', Galina Gavrilyeva, 28 Nov 2017
RC2: 'statistical significance level of ap to toh correlation', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Nov 2017
- AC2: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #2 statistic significance', Galina Gavrilyeva, 28 Nov 2017
RC3: 'Review of paper “Influence of geomagnetic activity on mesopause temperature over Yakutia”', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Nov 2017
- AC3: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #1', Galina Gavrilyeva, 28 Nov 2017

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Galina Gavrilyeva on behalf of the Authors (21 Dec 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 Dec 2017) by Franz-Josef Lübken

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (10 Jan 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The paper has been successfully revised, removing my previous reservations, and is now fully acceptable for publication in ACP. There are only some very minor copy editing details left to repair (as far as I can tell from the "acp-2017-541-manuscript-version5.pdf" file which signals the changes with respect to the previous version, and still has some inconsistencies from leftovers), plus a few text improvements (for clarity) that I suggest in the following list.

P1:
L9: -> "at the altitude of"

L15: is the dot before "10 K higher" real?

L16: that should read "at the 95% level"

L20: is "of changes" before "in solar activity" really necessary? If solar activity were constant, we would not call it a cycle...

L26: could be shortened to read "to the change in F10.7 flux", because it is clearly defined above.

L29: better, change to "That study only used..." to remove any doubt that the 2002 paper is referred to, not the present manuscript.

L35: better, change order to read "The changes of F10.7 radio flux and the Ap index of magnetic disturbance over the last...", to make clear that both parameters change (if emphasis on the change is really necessary). However, the Ap index is explained in the following sentence, so the order of presentation should be changed.

P2:
L3: correct "upper latitude atmosphere" (deleting "latitude"?), and "through the of energetic..."

L5: As individual papers are mentioned only some lines later, "In these papers" is not helpful, here. Better, concatenate with previous sentence "... energies, discussing the influence of geomagnetic activity on atmospheric temperature in two different ways".

L7: "The first way [or, maybe, "process"] is a direct effect...".

L9: avoid "evidences", since it's used as not countable -> "There is some evidence..."

L10: put instrument/satellite in same order "SABER/TIMED and MIPAS/Envisat";

L13: -> "The authors suggested..."

L14: At start of sentence, -> "Von Savigny...", or rearrange so the reference appears later in the sentence.

L15: no need of plural in "the noctilucent cloud occurrence rate", or change to read "... in the occurrence rate of noctilucent clouds"; "made with SCIAMACHY" is misplaced here, and sentence needs reordering (author X observed something in satellite data after onset of EPP (?) event, or something was observed after onset of EPP in satellite data by author X). And, the next sentence refers to the same finding (?).

L21: there should also be "by" before "Jiang et al.", because they are two different and independent papers.

L22: "low thermosphere temperature" -> "temperature of the lower [!] thermosphere", to avoid the misunderstanding of the temperature being low.

L23: is this the "second way" (or, process)? Then, you should say so (or replace "the first way" by "one way [or process]. What does "whose energy" refer to? "the energy of precipitating particles that is deposited mainly..."

L31 (also L33): there should be no article before "hydroxyl", or even reorder -> "hydroxyl rotational temperature"

L32: replace "height of its radiation" by "mean emission height", "emission centroid height", or "at about 87 km".

L36: avoid repetition of "widely available index".

L38: "The mesopause", strictly speaking, is not a region but the precise altitude where the vertical temperature gradient is zero (the height of which varies). Change to refer to the mesopause region (80 - 100 km).

L39: Avoid repetition; see above, L32.

L42: I think that "see, e.g., " is needed before the Khomich reference to avoid misleading readers about since when the OH temperature is used to diagnose mesopause region temperature. And, avoid misleading term "radiation height".

P3:
L1: better, change "the presented paper" to "this paper", or "the present paper". And, better add "described by Ammosov and Gavrilyeva (2000), so that the definite article before "infrared spectrograph" makes sence (or else, change to read "with an infrared spectrograph (Ammosov...)").

L5: -> "on the OH(6-2) spectrum".

L24: -> "The mean values of...", but averaged over what? Aha, the same averages as in 2a! Better, reformulate to make this clear, and that the same TOH data are repeated in 2a and 2b.

P4:
L33: -> "et al."; "geopotential" (lower case!)

L36: repetion of emission height "The hydroxyl radiating ... (~ 87 km)" has been removed in new text, L37 etc. Delete repeated lines of text.

P5:
L9: "data" is plural, so -> "are necessary to separate..." (also, delete "because")

L22: -> "in search for a geomag..."

L27: -> "explained by the altitude difference between the mesopause..."

L29: -> "The warming signal..."; hmmm, and "to low one" is not informative ("moves down" says it all).

several refs: missing hyphen in "J.Atmos.Solar-Terr.Phys."

P6:
L24: missing hyphens in "9-day" and "13.5-day"

Caption Figure 3: "-black columns, grey columns-": confusing change of order (after/before main explanation). If at all necessary (the symbols are explained in the figure, clearly enough), "black columns", "grey columns" should be included in the parenteses "(Ap>8; black columns)", "(Ap<=8; grey columns)".

Caption Figure 4: -> "Monthly mean TOH..."

Caption Figure 5: -> "F10.7 and Ap-index averages for January...", because the fact that they vary is obvious from the figure.

------------------------------------

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (17 Jan 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have not addressed one of my original comments and some of the responses to other comments will require further clarification.

The comment that has not been addressed (with page and line numbers referring to the original manuscript) was:
“Page 3 L16-17: “Warming signal moves down from high altitude to low one.” and most of the last paragraph. This is not necessarily the case and certainly this is not a conclusion you can make based on the present study. Several of the publications you have cited actually argue that the stratosphere temperature signals are driven by changes in dynamics and are not related to in situ changes in ozone.”

Previous comments (with page and line numbers referring to the original manuscript) that need further clarification:

“L27-30: A similar downwards descending signal (in the same model) is already demonstrated by Baumgaertner et al (2011) using Geopotential height anomalies.”
This is now relevant to Introduction (P2, L30) and Results (Page 5, L29-33).
I suggest care when referring to the Karami et al. paper as this paper never went past peer review due to various issues (these are openly available in the reviewer reports on the APCD webpage). Baumgaertner et al. (2011) would be better to use as a reference here for the same model, but more realistic EPP forcing.

“L32-33: Not all models are limited to this altitude range, but many reanalysis datasets are limited to altitudes below the stratopause. Models have issues in comprehensive inclusion of EPP. “
Now on P4, L35-36.
The authors still give the impression that models are limited to altitudes below 80km. This is not true. The CESM/WACCM model for example extends to ~150km and simulates temperatures and winds in the whole attitude region.

It also seems that the authors have misunderstood one of my other comments. I will try to clarify as in my opinion this still needs to be addressed.
- My questions about the impact of EPP driven HOx increases to the observations. What I was trying to ask was: If the amount of OH changes in the mesopause region, is the TOH affected? I think what you are telling me is “No”, but I’m still not quite sure. This point would be worth saying clearly.

I have one additional comment on the new introduction text:
Talking about the two possible ways geomagnetic activity can modify temperatures in the mesopause region is very useful. What is not clear from the new text is in what timescales these effects work in? If strong geomagnetic events are excluded, does the joule heating effect persist beyond the events? There is also a third possible aspect: adiabatic heating as a result of changing dynamics. I recommend that the authors read Jackman, C. H., R. G. Roble, and E. L. Fleming (2007), Mesospheric dynamical changes induced by the solar proton events in October – November 2003, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L04812, doi:10.1029/2006GL028328.
Can we estimate the contributions of the different mechanisms for temperature changes to the TOH observations you report? A sentence or two in the conclusions would be very worth adding.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (19 Jan 2018) by Franz-Josef Lübken

AR by Galina Gavrilyeva on behalf of the Authors (29 Jan 2018)

ED: Publish as is (31 Jan 2018) by Franz-Josef Lübken

AR by Galina Gavrilyeva on behalf of the Authors (07 Feb 2018) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

The study of the response of the upper atmosphere to changes in solar and geomagnetic activity is an important contribution to the study of the Earth's climate. Measurements showed that the change in the atmospheric temperature at an altitude of 87 km above Yakutia lags behind the maximum solar radiation by 2 years and correlates with a change in geomagnetic activity. The winter temperature is higher in the years of the geomagnetic activity maximum than in the years of the minimum.