Impacts of Storm “Zyprian” on Middle and Upper Atmosphere Observed from Central European Stations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article studies the impacts of storm “Zyprian” on middle and upper atmosphere observed from Central European stations, and shows some phenomena. This is a very interesting study, but the analysis is not deep enough.

 

 

1.     Some pictures are not clear, such as Figure 13, 20, 21.

 

2. Some important phenomena and conclusions need more support. Such as the phenomena described in lines 776-781, we can not get the phenomena from Figure 16 or any other figures.

 

3. Figure 22 and 23 only show the VLF amplitudes and their periods during the cyclone, we can not get the conclusion in line 967-968, we do not know their periods before or after the cyclone. For the same reason, The Figure 15 also needs more data, like the data in 6 July and 10 July, and then the increase in wave-like activity in F layer may be inferred.

 

4. It will be better, if the article can further explain how waves propagate from the troposphere to the ionosphere according to the observations.

 

5. The article is a bit lengthy and needs to be refined.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Authors would like to thank the Reviewer for her/his comments and suggestions. We have answered all the points and adjusted the manuscript accordingly. 

Reviewer 1

This article studies the impacts of storm “Zyprian” on middle and upper atmosphere observed from Central European stations, and shows some phenomena. This is a very interesting study, but the analysis is not deep enough.

1. Some pictures are not clear, such as Figure 13, 20, 21.

We have corrected Figures 20 (directograms) and 21 (drifts) as suggested by the reviewer. We appologize, Figure 13 (Aeolus) represents standard output from the satellite data center that cannot be manipulated. We have added link to the source.

2. Some important phenomena and conclusions need more support. Such as the phenomena described in lines 776-781, we can not get the phenomena from Figure 16 or any other figures.

We have added some text. Now the paragraph is:

Significant decrease of minimal values of foF2 shortly after the “Zyprian” frontal passage occurred. During observed days a slight decrease of  variance of foF2 compared to preceding days can be identified. Critical frequency foF2 stayed at lower values for the following three days compared to median values as well as the days prior the “Zyprian” passage. On both stations, lower concentration is recorded on the entire profiles for the first three days including the “Zyprian” day.

 

3. Figure 22 and 23 only show the VLF amplitudes and their periods during the cyclone, we can not get the conclusion in line 967-968, we do not know their periods before or after the cyclone. For the same reason, The Figure 15 also needs more data, like the data in 6 July and 10 July, and then the increase in wave-like activity in F layer may be inferred.

We have added preceding and following day data and enlarged Figure 15 as requested. Due to VLF data availability issue we cannot easily extend the time series as requested. Therefore we modify the conclusion as follow: 

Gravity wave activity is observed in the lower ionosphere in two domains of about 5-15 minute and 20-25 minute period ranges.

 

4. It will be better, if the article can further explain how waves propagate from the troposphere to the ionosphere according to the observations.

In the introduction we have tried to provide a picture of the generation and propagation of infrasound and gravity waves from the troposphere up to ionosphere. We have put together a large set of measurements that show the strong convective system, known to be an efficient source of atmospheric waves, and coincidental occurrence of atmospheric waves up to the upper atmosphere. Despite having data sets from troposphere, stratosphere and ionosphere, there are still height gaps where the measurement is very limited or not possible. Hence, we cannot trace the wave disturbances across the atmosphere more precisely. 

5. The article is a bit lengthy and needs to be refined.

We have reduced the paper. Some parts were moved to the Appendices.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A review for “Impacts of storm “Zyprian” on middle and upper atmosphere observed from Central European stations” by Petra Koucká Knížová et al.

The manuscript presents an analysis of the low to upper atmosphere conditions, including the ionosphere, during a passage of a storm “Zyprian” in July 2021. The presented analysis covers different layers of the neutral atmosphere, from the troposphere and up to the mesosphere, as well as the electron density variations in the ionosphere, and different data are used through the analysis.

 

The presented work is of significant interest to the community, since the atmosphere-ionosphere bottom-up coupling is one of the main areas of interest for the ionospheric community. Still, some improvements should be made.

 

First of all, the manuscript is rather lengthy in the description of the observations, but rather short in the discussion of the results and connections between the results obtained from different instruments and for different atmospheric layers. I propose to reduce section 3 and expand section 4 focusing on the relations between the results obtained from different instruments presented in sec. 3. Also, I propose to expand sec. 5 with a discussion of the relations between phenomena observed in the troposphere, stratosphere and ionosphere and about the proofs for the AGW dynamics during the studied event.

 

Also, some figures (e.g., 13, 17) are of a low resolution, some labels are missing (especially for colour scales), also many figure captions lack  description of the individual  panels, lines etc.

 

Author Response

Authors would like to thank the Reviewer for her/his comments and suggestions. We have answered all the points and adjusted the manuscript accordingly. 

 

Reviewer 2

 

A review for “Impacts of storm “Zyprian” on middle and upper atmosphere observed from Central European stations” by Petra Koucká Knížová et al.

 

The manuscript presents an analysis of the low to upper atmosphere conditions, including the ionosphere, during a passage of a storm “Zyprian” in July 2021. The presented analysis covers different layers of the neutral atmosphere, from the troposphere and up to the mesosphere, as well as the electron density variations in the ionosphere, and different data are used through the analysis.

 

The presented work is of significant interest to the community, since the   atmosphere-ionosphere bottom-up coupling is one of the main areas of interest for the ionospheric community. Still, some improvements should be made.

 

First of all, the manuscript is rather lengthy in the description of the observations, but rather short in the discussion of the results and connections between the results obtained from different instruments and for different atmospheric layers. I propose to reduce section 3 and expand section 4 focusing on the relations between the results obtained from different instruments presented in sec. 3. Also, I propose to expand sec. 5 with a discussion of the relations between phenomena observed in the troposphere, stratosphere and ionosphere and about the proofs for the AGW dynamics during the studied event.

We have reduced the paper in the Introduction and Method parts. Some parts were moved to the Appendices. We have  expanded Discussion and Conclusion parts.

 

Also, some figures (e.g., 13, 17) are of a low resolution, some labels are missing (especially for colour scales), also many figure captions lack description of the individual panels, lines etc.

We have improved the readability of Figures. Figure 13 (Aeolus) represents standard output from the satellite data center that cannot be manipulated. We have added a link to the source. We apologize for some captions were not at the same page as a corresponding figures

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an investigation of the impacts of storm "Zyprian" on both the middle and upper atmosphere. They utilized a combination of ground-based measurements and satellite data, which makes the research interesting, especially in understanding the coupling effects between tropospheric phenomena and ionospheric disturbances. However, the lack of a solid theoretical framework undermines the scientific contribution of the article. The analysis should be strengthened by incorporating more theoretical models and equations to explain the observed phenomena quantitatively. The relationship between the results should also be appropriately stated.

Additionally, the reference section is excessively long, containing 126 citations, which is more than typical even for review papers. This suggests that some of the references might not be directly relevant to the specific research question. A focused and concise set of references would enhance the clarity and impact of the study. This paper is in its first draft stage, but please ensure that formatting and other issues in the text are addressed carefully.

 

Specific suggestions:

1. Line 31: Ensure that abbreviations introduced for the first time are accompanied by a full explanation in English. For example: VLF, SKY?

 

2. Line 59: Make sure to capitalize the initial letters at the beginning of paragraphs. Also, clarify where Reference 17 is used by indicating the relevant paragraph.

 

3. Line 60: Consider revising the capitalization of "Modern Maximum" unless there is a specific reason for it to be capitalized in this context.

 

4. Lines 136, 180: As previously noted, the reference list contains 126 citations, which is quite extensive. While many of the references are useful, some appear to be tangential to the main argument. Reducing the number of citations would not diminish the quality of the paper and would allow readers to focus on the most critical literature related to the research presented.

5. Line 223: the paper presents detailed observational data and describes the data sources effectively. However, it lacks sufficient theoretical underpinning, such as the inclusion of mathematical models or formulas, to substantiate the findings. That is to say, the “Methods” have not been explained clearly.

 

6. Lines 233, 240: Ensure that there is punctuation at the end of this paragraph to maintain clarity and completeness.

 

7. Line 236: Correct the punctuation at the end of this paragraph—it currently ends with a comma but should conclude with a period or other appropriate punctuation.

 

8. Line 248: The format of the web links should be standardized to maintain consistency. For example, the URL should be presented as: http://datacenter.ufa.cas.cz.

 

9. Lines 261, 262: When using abbreviations, only include the full name the first time it is mentioned. After that, only use the abbreviation.

 

10. Line 316: The abbreviation PMCC is missing parentheses around it. Please check and ensure that the full abbreviation is correctly enclosed as (PMCC).

 

11. Lines 474, 498, 911: Figure names and images should be on the same page. Please check this carefully.

 

12. Line 611: The text (Figure 8, panel B) has formatting issues that need to be addressed.

 

13. Line 762: The labels (a) and (b) inside Figure 15 are too large compared to the horizontal and vertical axis labels. Please ensure that the size of the small labels is consistent with the axes to maintain the overall visual appeal of the figure. The same is for Figure 19.

 

14. Line 786: In Figure 16, for example, the image is not very clear. Please check the image in the paper and replace it with a high-resolution version to ensure better clarity and visual quality.

 

15. Line 902: Ensure that "Figure 22" is bolded.

 

16. Line 934: Be consistent when referring to DPS 4D throughout the text. In Line 934, it is referenced correctly, but in Line 958, it appears as "DPD 4D." Standardize the terminology to avoid confusion.

 

17. Line 958: Correct the punctuation at the end of this paragraph—should conclude with a semicolon to maintain consistency with the surrounding text.

 

Author Response

Authors would like to thank the Reviewer for her/his comments and suggestions. We have answered all the points and adjusted the manuscript accordingly.

Reviewer 3

The authors present an investigation of the impacts of storm "Zyprian" on both the middle and upper atmosphere. They utilized a combination of ground-based measurements and satellite data, which makes the research interesting, especially in understanding the coupling effects between tropospheric phenomena and ionospheric disturbances. However, the lack of a solid theoretical framework undermines the scientific contribution of the article. The analysis should be strengthened by incorporating more theoretical models and equations to explain the observed phenomena quantitatively. The relationship between the results should also be appropriately stated.

We have added part of acoustic-gravity wave theory explaining wave property and propagation.

Additionally, the reference section is excessively long, containing 126 citations, which is more than typical even for review papers. This suggests that some of the references might not be directly relevant to the specific research question. A focused and concise set of references would enhance the clarity and impact of the study. This paper is in its first draft stage, but please ensure that formatting and other issues in the text are addressed carefully.

We have shortened the paper and reduced the number of references.

Specific suggestions:

1. Line 31: Ensure that abbreviations introduced for the first time are accompanied by a full explanation in English. For example: VLF, SKY?

VLF - Corrected

SKYmaps - SKYmap is explained in the Digisonde section. Here we added text  (both products of digisonde measurement)

2. Line 59: Make sure to capitalize the initial letters at the beginning of paragraphs. Also, clarify where Reference 17 is used by indicating the relevant paragraph.

Part of the text is removed

3. Line 60: Consider revising the capitalization of "Modern Maximum" unless there is a specific reason for it to be capitalized in this context.

The introduction part was shortened. The Modern Maximum is not referenced in the revised version.

Term Modern Maximum refers to an increase of intensity of solar cycles aprox. 15-23 with maximum in solar cycle 19. While both capitalized and non-capitalized forms are used in literature ("modern maximum" is mentioned e.g. in https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s41116-017-0006-9.pdf

we usually encountered usage of "Modern Maximum" in most of the scientific papers. Therefore we are inclined to use the later form.

4. Lines 136, 180: As previously noted, the reference list contains 126 citations, which is quite extensive. While many of the references are useful, some appear to be tangential to the main argument. Reducing the number of citations would not diminish the quality of the paper and would allow readers to focus on the most critical literature related to the research presented.

Part of the references are removed

5. Line 223: the paper presents detailed observational data and describes the data sources effectively. However, it lacks sufficient theoretical underpinning, such as the inclusion of mathematical models or formulas, to substantiate the findings. That is to say, the “Methods” have not been explained clearly.

We have added acoustic-gravity wave equation and conditions for propagation of infrasound and gravity waves into the Introduction part

6. Lines 233, 240: Ensure that there is punctuation at the end of this paragraph to maintain clarity and completeness.

Corrected

7. Line 236: Correct the punctuation at the end of this paragraph—it currently ends with a comma but should conclude with a period or other appropriate punctuation.

Corrected

8. Line 248: The format of the web links should be standardized to maintain consistency. For example, the URL should be presented as: http://datacenter.ufa.cas.cz.

Corrected

9. Lines 261, 262: When using abbreviations, only include the full name the first time it is mentioned. After that, only use the abbreviation.

Corrected

10. Line 316: The abbreviation PMCC is missing parentheses around it. Please check and ensure that the full abbreviation is correctly enclosed as (PMCC).

Corrected

11. Lines 474, 498, 911: Figure names and images should be on the same page. Please check this carefully.

We apologize and check it in the revised version.

12. Line 611: The text (Figure 8, panel B) has formatting issues that need to be addressed.

Corrected

13. Line 762: The labels (a) and (b) inside Figure 15 are too large compared to the horizontal and vertical axis labels. Please ensure that the size of the small labels is consistent with the axes to maintain the overall visual appeal of the figure. The same is for Figure 19.

Corrected

14. Line 786: In Figure 16, for example, the image is not very clear. Please check the image in the paper and replace it with a high-resolution version to ensure better clarity and visual quality.

Corrected

15. Line 902: Ensure that "Figure 22" is bolded.

Corrected

 

16. Line 934: Be consistent when referring to DPS 4D throughout the text. In Line 934, it is referenced correctly, but in Line 958, it appears as "DPD 4D." Standardize the terminology to avoid confusion.

Corrected

17. Line 958: Correct the punctuation at the end of this paragraph—should conclude with a semicolon to maintain consistency with the surrounding text.

Corrected

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more suggestions.