Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 15 references

Impact of Gravity Waves From Tropospheric and Non-tropospheric Sources on the Middle and Upper Atmosphere and Comparison with ICON/MIGHTI Winds

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that in the CMAT2 general circulation model, gravity waves launched only in the troposphere reproduce the basic vertical structure of ICON/MIGHTI thermospheric winds, while added non-tropospheric sources change little and…

desk verdict A careful, honest sensitivity study that confirms tropospheric sources dominate in CMAT2, with a real but clearly acknowledged caveat about the assumed source spectrum. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14918 v1 pith:RXUDIETU submitted 2025-06-17 physics.space-ph astro-ph.EPphysics.ao-ph

Erdal Yiğit , Alexander S. Medvedev , Ayden L. S. Gann , Gary P. Klaassen , Douglas E. Rowland This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phastro-ph.EPphysics.ao-ph
keywords atmosphericgravitywaveswavedragthermosphericwindsICON/MIGHTICMAT2secondarymiddleatmosphereverticalcouplingwhole-atmosphereparameterization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether gravity waves generated above the troposphere—secondary waves produced by breaking primary waves and other middle-atmosphere processes—add anything to the upper atmosphere beyond what primary tropospheric waves already provide. Using the CMAT2 general circulation model with a whole-atmosphere nonlinear gravity wave parameterization, the authors compare northern summer solstice runs with tropospheric sources only, with added tenfold sources at 50 and 90 km, and with sources of tropospheric strength at every altitude above 15 km. They find that tropospheric-only waves reproduce the basic vertical structure of ICON/MIGHTI thermospheric winds, that localized upper sources change almost nothing in the zonal mean, and that the all-altitude case—explicitly an upper limit—changes mean zonal winds by up to ±30 m/s without improving the global comparison. If the assumptions hold, current gravity wave drag schemes may already capture the main influence of these waves on the thermosphere.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the whole-atmosphere nonlinear gravity wave parameterization of Yiğit et al. (2008), extended by Medvedev et al. (2023) to accept sources at arbitrary heights. At the 15 km source level the scheme prescribes a Gaussian spectrum of vertical momentum flux for 38 harmonics with intrinsic phase speeds of ±2 to ±80 m/s and a representative horizontal wavelength of 300 km; above that level each harmonic's flux evolves under density growth, critical-level filtering, and dissipation from nonlinear interactions, molecular viscosity and thermal conduction, radiative damping, and ion drag. Gravity wave drag is the vertical divergence of the resulting momentum flux, and net heating or cooling combines irreversible and differential terms. The extension expresses unknown non-tropospheric forcing as multiples of the tropospheric forcing $G_{\mathrm{trop}}$ needed to generate the incident spectrum, keeping the same spectral shape and wavelength and assuming the extra sources amplify the incident harmonics in phase—a construction the authors present as an upper limit.

What would settle it

A decisive test would target the 110–140 km wave-breaking region, where the model has its largest bias and extra sources their largest effect: if denser ICON/MIGHTI sampling or case studies of well-characterized secondary wave events showed that adding realistic, phase-randomized middle-atmosphere sources systematically removes the troposphere-only bias in a global sense, the central conclusion would be overturned. Momentum flux measurements in the 50–90 km range at or above the assumed tropospheric-equivalent strength would likewise break the upper-limit interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the CMAT2 GCM, primary gravity waves launched near the tropopause are sufficient to reproduce the basic vertical structure of thermospheric horizontal winds as measured by ICON/MIGHTI, and that adding idealized non-tropospheric wave sources does not improve—and even slightly degrades—the global statistical comparison. Localized sources placed at 90 km have negligible thermospheric impact even at ten times tropospheric strength, and 50 km sources produce changes about three times smaller than the largest case. The largest differences, up to ±30 m/s in zonal wind and ±40 K/day in heating and cooling rates, occur when sources of tropospheric strength are placed at every altitude above 15 km; since no observational evidence supports such persistent strong middle-atmosphere generation, the authors present this as an upper bound on the dynamical importance of missing secondary sources. The paper also establishes that gravity wave drag is longitudinally uniform in the lower thermosphere but localized in the upper thermosphere, that all-height sources raise longitudinal wind variability only up to about 150 km before ion-neutral coupling dominates, and that wave effects peak during the day in the upper thermosphere but at night in the lower thermosphere.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that missing upper-atmosphere wave sources can be represented as in-phase, same-spectrum multiples of the tropospheric forcing; if real secondary waves are weaker, spectrally different, or out of phase with the primary waves, the modeled effects and the conclusion that tropospheric sources dominate could be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Global models that launch gravity waves only near the tropopause may already capture most of the gravity wave influence on thermospheric circulation, since the troposphere-only run reproduces the observed basic wind structure.
  • Secondary-wave sources near the mesopause are unlikely to matter for the zonally averaged thermosphere: even a source ten times stronger than the troposphere at 90 km changed the mean fields negligibly.
  • The all-height source run bounds the possible dynamical effect of missing middle-atmosphere waves at about ±30 m/s in zonal wind and ±40 K/day in heating and cooling; any real secondary source weaker or less coherent than the assumed one would produce smaller changes.
  • Model skill depends on wind component and altitude: correlations with ICON/MIGHTI are 0.5–0.65 for zonal winds and 0.25–0.45 for meridional winds, with better agreement in the upper thermosphere than in the lower thermosphere, where an eastward bias places the wind reversal too high.
  • If future observations quantify middle-atmosphere wave generation, its effects could be folded into existing drag parameterizations by retuning, since the extra sources mostly amplify what the tropospheric waves already do.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A run the paper does not perform—extra sources with random phases rather than in-phase amplification—would sharpen the upper-limit claim; out-of-phase sources could partly cancel the incident harmonics, making the true impact of secondary waves smaller still.
  • Because the upper-thermosphere drag is localized in longitude while ion drag erases wind variability above about 150 km, replacing the empirical ionosphere model with a fully interactive one could shift the height at which ion-neutral coupling overtakes wave-driven variability.
  • The correlation-and-RMSE comparison against MIGHTI winds is directly transferable to other whole-atmosphere models, which would test whether tropospheric dominance of thermospheric wind structure is a property of the real atmosphere or of this particular drag scheme and its 300 km reference wavelength.
  • The paper's own construction implies that if persistent middle-atmosphere wave generation is ever found, its clearest signature in the thermosphere would be longitudinal rather than zonal-mean structure below about 150 km—a target that coordinated airglow and radar campaigns could seek.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript uses the CMAT2 general circulation model, with the whole-atmosphere nonlinear gravity wave parameterization and the Medvedev et al. (2023) extension for vertically distributed sources, to isolate the effects of tropospheric versus non-tropospheric gravity wave sources on the middle and upper atmosphere. Four simulations are presented for northern summer solstice 2020: a benchmark with sources at 15 km only (EXP0), sources added at 90 km (EXP1) and 50 km (EXP2) at 10 times the tropospheric forcing, and sources equal to the tropospheric forcing at all levels above 15 km (EXP3). The paper analyzes zonal-mean temperature and wind changes, gravity wave drag and heating/cooling, longitudinal and local-time variability, and compares daytime ICON/MIGHTI winds with EXP0, EXP2, and EXP3. The central reported findings are that EXP3 produces the largest differences (up to ±30 m/s in zonal wind), that localized high-altitude sources have little effect, and that adding non-tropospheric sources changes wave-breaking regions but does not improve the global statistical comparison with MIGHTI wind observations.

Significance. If the experiment family is accepted as a proxy for unresolved middle-atmosphere sources, the paper provides a useful negative result: a whole-atmosphere GCM with tropospheric-only sources captures the basic vertical structure of thermospheric winds as seen by ICON/MIGHTI, and the prescribed extra-tropospheric sources do not improve the skill. The paper is commendably transparent about the speculative nature of the extra-tropospheric source prescription, labels EXP3 as an upper limit, and makes model output available through Zenodo. The ICON comparison is an independent, externally observed test. The principal limitation is that the 'upper limit' and 'does not improve' conclusions are conditional on a narrow family of assumed source spectra and on a daytime, single-season, low-latitude comparison; these qualifications need to be carried into the abstract and conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.2.3, Eq. (1); Sections 4.1 and 6] The paper repeatedly describes EXP3 as an upper limit or upper estimate of the importance of non-tropospheric sources, but this is an upper limit only within the assumed source family. In Eq. (1) and Section 2.2.3, every non-tropospheric source is prescribed as a multiple of the tropospheric momentum forcing G_trop with the same Gaussian phase-speed spectrum and, by construction, the added harmonics amplify the incident waves in phase. A secondary-wave spectrum generated by body forces typically contains shorter horizontal wavelengths and different intrinsic phase speeds (Vadas et al., 2018), and such harmonics could survive critical-level filtering in altitude regions where the 300-km tropospheric spectrum is filtered. Because Figures 4 and 5 show the largest modeled changes precisely in wind-reversal regions, an untested spectral shape could place momentum deposition elsewhere and change the conclusion. The Section 6 limitations acknowledge this in part, but the abstract and the final 'minor effects' inference present the result more strongly than the experiments support. I recommend rewording the abstract and Section 6 so that the dominance conclusion is explicitly conditional on the assumed source family.
  2. [Section 5, Figure 11] The statistical comparison in Figure 11 reports correlation coefficients and RMSE for EXP0, EXP2, and EXP3 without confidence intervals, effective sample sizes, or significance tests. The differences among experiments are small relative to the reported ranges (e.g., zonal correlations 0.5–0.65), so the claim that adding non-tropospheric sources 'does not improve- and even slightly degrades' the comparison cannot be evaluated from the presented statistics. In addition, the comparison uses only daytime MIGHTI observations from June–July 2020 and only low latitudes (0–40°N in Figures 9–10), so the phrase 'global statistical comparison' in the abstract and Section 6 is too strong. The authors should either provide uncertainties and a statement of sample size/independence, or explicitly qualify the conclusions to 'daytime, single-season, low-latitude' comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, Figure 5 caption] The text and caption refer to the localized 90-km source as EXP2, but according to Table 1 EXP1 is the 90-km case and EXP2 is the 50-km case; this labeling inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Introduction, references] The Holton and Alexander (1999) reference title contains 'tropospheric convention' and should read 'tropospheric convection.'
  3. [Section 2.4] The sentence 'ICON was launched on 10 October 10 2019' contains a duplicated '10' and should be corrected.
  4. [Sections 3 and 4.1] There are duplicated words in the running text: 'with with a rate of' in Section 4.1 and 'the the global maximum' in Section 3; these should be fixed.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript uses 'extra-tropospheric' and 'non-tropospheric' interchangeably; choosing one term consistently would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the non-tropospheric source runs are sensitivity experiments with explicitly assumed spectra, and the central validation against ICON/MIGHTI is independent external data.

full rationale

The paper does not fit its target quantities to the same data it predicts. The gravity wave source parameters (u'w'max = 3e-4 m2 s-2, cw = 35 m/s, lambda_h = 300 km) are fixed before the ICON comparison (Section 2.2.1), and the EXP0-EXP3 changes are emergent GCM fields, not prescribed outputs. Section 2.2.3 states that the unknown extra-tropospheric forcing is 'expressed in terms of the tropospheric forcing G_trop' and that the horizontal wavelength and spectral shape are kept the same; this is a stated modeling assumption that deliberately bounds the experiment, not a derivation that equals its conclusion. The paper's own limitations are explicit: Section 4.1 notes 'there is currently no observational evidence to support such strong sources in the middle atmosphere, therefore the results should be viewed only as an upper limit estimate,' and the final paragraphs of Section 6 concede that real sources could have different spectral shapes and phase relationships, so EXP3 is an 'upper estimate' within the assumed source family rather than a general bound. The ICON/MIGHTI comparison (Section 5, Figures 9-11) is external data and is the basis for the claim that EXP0 reproduces the basic wind structure; self-citations to Yigit et al. (2008) and Medvedev et al. (2023) reference a previously published parameterization framework used as a tool and do not carry the new result. No equation is fitted to the predicted quantity, no uniqueness claim is imported, and no known result is merely renamed. Hence no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central modeling results rest on the assumed source spectrum and the ad hoc prescription of extra-tropospheric sources. No new physical entities are introduced; the free parameters are the adjustable constants of the gravity wave scheme and the chosen source strengths.

free parameters (5)
  • u'w'max (maximum momentum flux of incident GW spectrum) = 3e-4 m^2/s^2
    Fixed maximum amplitude of the Gaussian source spectrum at the 15 km source level; controls overall wave amplitude and is inherited from prior tuning.
  • cw (half-width of phase speed Gaussian) = 35 m/s
    Adjustable spectral width of the source phase speed distribution.
  • lambda_h (characteristic horizontal wavelength) = 300 km
    Representative horizontal wavelength used for all harmonics in the parameterization.
  • Non-tropospheric source strengths = 10x G_trop (EXP1, EXP2); 1x G_trop (EXP3)
    Chosen to explore an upper limit of missing sources; not constrained by observations.
  • Source altitudes for extra-tropospheric runs = 90 km (EXP1), 50 km (EXP2), all levels above 15 km (EXP3)
    Scenario choices to test localized versus distributed sources.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gravity waves are represented by a spectrum of planar harmonics with fixed horizontal wavelength and phase speeds, with nonlinear dissipation parameterized as in Yiğit et al. (2008).
    Valid for weakly nonlinear small-amplitude waves; used throughout the model (Section 2.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Non-tropospheric sources can be represented as multiples of the tropospheric momentum forcing G_trop with identical spectral shape.
    Stated in Section 2.2.3; made to explore the upper limit of missing sources, not derived from observations.
  • ad hoc to paper Extra-tropospheric waves always add in phase with tropospheric harmonics, amplifying them.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 6 as an upper estimate; realistic phase shifts could reduce or cancel effects.
  • domain assumption Lower boundary forcing from NCEP reanalysis and GSWM tides, and empirical models for ionosphere and solar irradiance are adequate representations.
    Standard external forcing used in CMAT2 (Section 2.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of Gravity Waves From Tropospheric and Non-tropospheric Sources on the Middle and Upper Atmosphere and Comparison with ICON/MIGHTI Winds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RXUDIETU

@misc{pith2026250614918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of Gravity Waves From Tropospheric and Non-tropospheric Sources on the Middle and Upper Atmosphere and Comparison with ICON/MIGHTI Winds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RXUDIETU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14918}
}
abstract

We study the dynamical and thermal roles of internal gravity waves generated in the troposphere and above using the Coupled Middle Atmosphere Thermosphere-2 General Circulation Model. This model incorporates the whole atmosphere nonlinear gravity wave parameterization and its extension to include non-tropospheric sources. We conducted model experiments for northern summer solstice conditions, first including only tropospheric sources, then including sources localized at 50 and 90 km, and uniformly distributed over all heights. The simulated differences in mean temperature and horizontal winds demonstrate that gravity waves produce the greatest dynamical and thermal changes in the latter case compared to the localized sources. While the gravity wave drag is longitudinally uniform in the lower thermosphere, it is more localized in the upper thermosphere in all the simulations. Waves from uniformly distributed sources increase the longitudinal variability of zonal winds in the thermosphere up to $\sim$150 km. Gravity wave effects exhibit different local time variations in the lower thermosphere (100--140 km) than in the upper thermosphere. In the upper thermosphere, gravity wave effects are stronger during the day than at night. In contrast, nighttime gravity wave effects are stronger than the daytime ones in the lower thermosphere. Finally, a comparison with ICON-MIGHTI observations shows that the model reproduces the basic structure of thermospheric winds, performing better with zonal winds than with meridional winds. Adding non-tropospheric wave sources modifies wind structures in wave-breaking regions, but does not improve the global statistical comparison.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14918 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Gravity wave spectrum at the source level represented by a Gaussian distri￾bution of horizontal momentum fluxes as a function of horizontal phase speeds on 2 June 2020, 0000 UT at 50◦N, 0◦ longitude (Greenwich Meridian). The source spectrum is asymmetric since it takes into account the local mean winds (us = 3.8 m s−1 at this location and time). Panel (b) shows the associated momentum forcing (in m s−2 ) require… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The background atmosphere as simulated by the CMAT2 GCM at a representative location and time: Latitude θ = 75◦N, longitude ϕ = 0◦ (Greenwich Meridian), 2 June 2020, 0000 UT. (a) Background horizontal wind components, (b) neutral temperature T, (c) pressure scale height H. In (a), u and v denote the zonal and meridional components of the horizontal wind velocity u, and ua is the projection of the upper level horizon… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Instantaneous column model results for the incident test harmonic ci = 80 m s−1 on 2 June 2020 0000 UT, taking into account nonlinear interactions with a broad spectrum of waves, at a representative grid point (θ = 75◦ , ϕ = 0◦ ): (a) gravity wave variance u′2 (black) and horizontal momentum flux u′w′ (blue) in m−2 s −2 ; the wave flux per unit mass in case of conservative propagation (red dotted) is added. (b) Back… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pressure-latitude distributions of the fields simulated with CMAT2 for the North￾ern Hemisphere summer solstice conditions: (a) Neutral temperature T, (b) zonal wind u, (c) meridional wind v. The fields are averaged longitudinally and temporally between June 6 and July…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Longitudinal variability of the zonal wind and zonal gravity wave drag from the upper mesosphere to the thermosphere shown as pressure-longitude cross sections of the time￾averaged (6 June–5July) zonal wind (u, contours) and zonal gravity wave drag (ax, shading) at 45◦…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Standard deviation of the pressure-longitude distribution of the mean zonal wind and mean zonal gravity wave drag presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Altitude-latitude cross-sections of the mean zonal wind for June 6–July 5, 2020. The comparison includes daytime ICON-MIGHTI observations (panels a and e) compared against CMAT2 model configurations EXP0 (panels b and f), EXP2 (panels c and g), and EXP3 (panels d and h…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A statistical comparison between the CMAT-2 general circulation model simula￾tions (EXP0, EXP2, EXP3) and daytime ICON-MIGHTI satellite observations of thermospheric winds. The top panel shows correlation coefficients and the bottom panel has root mean square error fo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Chau, J

    Conte, J. F., Chau, J. L., Liu, A., Qiao, Z., Fritts, D. C., Hormaechea, J. L., . . . Milla, M. A. (2022). Comparison of MLT Momentum Fluxes Over the Andes at Four Different Latitudinal Sectors Using Multistatic Radar Configurations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres,127(4), e2021JD035982. doi: 10.1029/2021JD035982 Daniell, R. E., Brown, L. D.,...

    work page doi:10.1029/2021jd035982 2022

  2. [10]

    The contour intervals for the drag are in 20 m s −1 day−1 within 200 m s−1 day−1

    Altitude [km] 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N Latitude [ ] (f) (EXP3) -80-40 -20 -20 -20 -20 -20 -20-10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 20 20 40 80 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 Drag Difference [m s 1 day 1] 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 Heating/Cooling Difference [K day 1] CMAT2 Gravity Wave Fields, 6 June - 5 July 2020 Figure 5.Same as in ...

    work page 2020

  3. [12]

    Altitude [km] 0 100 200 300 400 500 Drag [m s 1 day 1] (b) Zonal Gravity Wave Drag ax(EXP0) ax(EXP3) CMAT2 Zonal Wind-GW Fields, 6 June-5 July 2020, 45 N Variability Figure 7.Standard deviation of the pressure-longitude distribution of the mean zonal wind and mean zonal gravity wave drag presented in Figure

    work page 2020

  4. [13]

    R., & Kumar, K

    doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0449-2 John, S. R., & Kumar, K. K. (2013). A discussion on the methods of extracting gravity wave perturbations from spacebased measurements.Geophys. Res. Lett.,40, 1–5. doi: 10.1002/grl.50451 Kogure, M., Yue, J., Nakamura, T., Hoffmann, L., Vadas, S. L., Tomikawa, Y., . . . Janches, D. (2020). First Direct Observational Evidence f...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0449-2 2013

  5. [14]

    Altitude [km] 0 60 120 180 240 300 Longitude [ ] (c) EXP3 EXP0: ax, u -40 -30 -20 -20 -20 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 450 300 150 0 150 300 450 600 Gravity Wave Drag [m s 1 day 1] CMAT2 Zonal Wind-GW Fields, 6 June-5 July 2020, 0000 UT, 45 Local Time Variability Figure 8.Same as Figure 6 but for time-averaged...

    work page 2020

  6. [15]

    6 June - 5 July 2020 Zonal Wind Comparison Figure 9.Altitude-latitude cross-sections of the mean zonal wind for June 6–July 5,

    work page 2020

  7. [16]

    6 June - 5 July 2020 Meridional Wind Comparison Figure 10.Same as in Figure 9 but for the meridional wind. –29– manuscript submitted toJournal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics Greenline Zonal Greenline Meridional Redline Zonal Redline Meridional 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6Correlation Wind Correlation by Data Type and Wind Component EXP0 EXP2 EXP3 G...

    work page 2020

  8. [45]

    M., Liu, H., Liu, A

    doi: 10.3402/tellusa.v51i1.12305 Huang, K. M., Liu, H., Liu, A. Z., Zhang, S. D., Huang, C. M., Gong, Y., & Ning, W. H. (2021). Investigation on Spectral Characteristics of Gravity Waves in the MLT Using Lidar Observations at Andes.Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics,126(4), e2020JA028918. doi: 10.1029/2020JA028918 Hysell, D. L., Kirchman, A., ...

    work page doi:10.3402/tellusa.v51i1.12305 2021

Show all 15 references
  1. [64]

    Gann, A. L. S., & Yi˘ git, E. (2024). Ionospheric and Thermospheric Effects of Hur- ricane Grace in 2021 Observed by Satellites.Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics,129(10), e2024JA032933. doi: 10.1029/2024JA032933 Garcia, R. F., Bruinsma, S., Massarweh, L., & Doornb...

    2024

  2. [79]

    doi: 10.1186/s40623-015-0228-9 Tobiska, W. K. (2000). Status of the SOLAR2000 solar irradiance model.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part C: Solar, Terrestrial & Planetary Science, 25(5), 383–386. doi: 10.1016/S1464-1917(00)00037-4 Trinh, Q. T., Kalisch, S., Preusse, P., C...

    2000

  3. [241]

    The fields are averaged longitudinally and temporally between June 6 and July

    Altitude [km] 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N Latitude [ ] (l) v(EXP3), v -60-50-40-30 -20 -10 -10 -10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 Temperature Difference [K] 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 Wind Difference [m s 1] CMAT2 Mean Fields, 6 June - 5 July 2020 Figure 4.Pressure...

    2020

  4. [304]

    The difference fields (EXP3−EXP0) are shown in panel c

    Altitude [km] 0 60 120 180 240 300 Longitude [ ] (c) EXP3 EXP0: ax, u -20 -20 -10 -10 -10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 Drag [m s 1 day 1] CMAT2 Zonal Wind-GW Fields, 6 June 5 July 2020, 45 N Longitudinal Variability Figure 6.Longitudinal variabili...

    2020

  5. [1048]

    N., & Yi˘ git, E

    doi: 10.5194/amt-11-1031-2018 Sakib, M. N., & Yi˘ git, E. (2022). A Brief Overview of Gravity Wave Retrieval Tech- niques From Observations.Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences,9. doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.824875 Shaposhnikov, D. S., Medvedev, A. S., Rodin, A. V., Yi˘ git, ...

    2022

  6. [4040]

    S., Klaassen, G

    doi: 10.1029/ 2002JD002504 Medvedev, A. S., Klaassen, G. P., & Yi˘ git, E. (2023). On the Dynamical Im- portance of Gravity Wave Sources Distributed Over Different Heights in the Atmosphere.Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics,128(3), e2022JA031152. doi: 10.1029/2022...

    2023 doi

  7. [4615]

    C., Beggan, C

    doi: 10.1029/2002JD003135 Th´ ebault, E., Finlay, C. C., Beggan, C. D., Alken, P., Aubert, J., Barrois, O., . . . Zvereva, T. (2015). International Geomagnetic Reference Field: The 12th generation.Earth Planet Sp,67(1),

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.