scholarly journals Review comments on the paper entitled “On the relationship of energetic particle precipitation and mesopause temperature” by F. Enengl et al.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anonymous
2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 22459-22504
Author(s):  
A. Robichaud ◽  
R. Ménard ◽  
S. Chabrillat ◽  
J. de Grandpré ◽  
Y. J. Rochon ◽  
...  

Abstract. In 2003, strong geomagnetic events occurred which produced massive amounts of energetic particles penetrating the top of the atmospheric polar region, significantly perturbing its chemical state down to the middle stratosphere. These events and their effects are generally left unaccounted for in current models of stratospheric chemistry and large differences between observations and models are then noted. In this study, we use a coupled 3-D stratospheric dynamical-chemical model and assimilation system to ingest MIPAS temperature and chemical observations. The goal is to gain further understanding and to evaluate the impacts of EPP (energetic particle precipitation) on stratospheric polar chemistry. Moreover, we investigate the feasibility of assimilating valid "outlier" observations associated with such events. We focus our analysis on OmF (Observation minus Forecast) residuals as they filter out phenomena well reproduced by the model (such as gas phase chemistry, transport, diurnal and seasonal cycles) thus revealing a clear trace of the EPP. Inspection of OmF statistics in both the passive (without chemical assimilation) and active (with chemical assimilation) cases altogether provides a powerful diagnostic tool to assess the model and assimilation system. We also show that passive OmF can permit a satisfactory evaluation of the ozone partial column loss due to EPP effects. Results suggest a small but significant loss of 5–6 DU (Dobson Units) during an EPP-IE (EPP indirect effects) event in the Antarctic winter of 2003, and about only 1 DU for the SPE (solar proton event) of October/November 2003. Despite large differences between the model and MIPAS chemical observations (NO2, HNO3, CH4 and O3), we demonstrate that a careful assimilation of these constituents with only gas phase chemistry included in the model (i.e. no provision for EPP impacts) and with relaxed quality control nearly eliminated the short-term bias and significantly reduced the standard deviation error below 1 hPa.


2006 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 607-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masanori Nishino ◽  
Kazuo Makita ◽  
Kiyofumi Yumoto ◽  
Yoshizumi Miyoshi ◽  
Nelson J. Schuch ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 115 (A10) ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Nesse Tyssøy ◽  
J. Stadsnes ◽  
M. Sørbø ◽  
C. J. Mertens ◽  
D. S. Evans

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharina Meraner ◽  
Hauke Schmidt

Abstract. Energetic particles enter the polar atmosphere and enhance the production of nitrogen oxides and hydrogen oxides in the winter stratosphere and mesosphere. Both components are powerful ozone destroyers. Recently, it has been inferred from observations that the direct effect of energetic particle precipitation (EPP) causes significant long-term mesospheric ozone variability. Satellites observe a decrease in mesospheric ozone by up to 34 % between EPP maximum and EPP minimum. Here, we analyze the climate impact of polar mesospheric and polar stratospheric ozone losses due to EPP in the coupled climate model MPI-ESM. Using radiative transfer modeling, we find that the radiative forcing of a mesospheric ozone loss during polar night is small. Hence, climate effects of a mesospheric ozone loss due to energetic particles seem unlikely. A stratospheric ozone loss due to energetic particles warms the winter polar stratosphere and subsequently weakens the polar vortex. However, those changes are small, and few statistically significant changes in surface climate are found.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document