Variations of the 630.0&thinsp;nm airglow emission with meridional neutral wind and neutral temperature around midnight

Chiang, Chih-Yu; Tam, Sunny Wing-Yee; Chang, Tzu-Fang

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-36-1471-2018

Articles | Volume 36, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-36-1471-2018

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-36-1471-2018

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

Articles | Volume 36, issue 5

Regular paper

|

26 Oct 2018

Regular paper |

| 26 Oct 2018

Variations of the 630.0 nm airglow emission with meridional neutral wind and neutral temperature around midnight

Chih-Yu Chiang, Sunny Wing-Yee Tam, and Tzu-Fang Chang

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 Oct 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 06 Feb 2018)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review report of angeo-2018-5', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Feb 2018
- AC1: 'Response for Anonymous Referee #1', Chih-Yu Chiang, 18 Apr 2018
RC2: 'Review of "Variation of the 630.0 nm airglow emission with meridional neutral wind and neutral temperature around midnight" by Chiang et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Mar 2018
- AC2: 'Response for Anonymous Referee #2', Chih-Yu Chiang, 18 Apr 2018

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (02 May 2018) by Keisuke Hosokawa

AR by Chih-Yu Chiang on behalf of the Authors (12 Jun 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Jun 2018) by Keisuke Hosokawa

RR by Yuichi Otsuka (24 Jun 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Incorporating the previous reviewer's comments, the manuscript has been revised. This paper could contribute to studies of the ionospheric dynamics and disturbances. Consequently, this paper is worth publishing in this journal. However, this reviewer recommends the authors to address the following minor comments.

-- Abstract and conclusion:
It would be better to describe how largely the temperature variation contributes to the airglow intensity variations compared to the effect of the neutral winds.

-- LL. 65-67,
"Cases of global midnight brightness were successfully categorized into four types that were mainly due to the influence of temperature changes, neutral wind and ionospheric anomaly.":

The authors mention that there are "four types" at l. 65, but only three types are explained at ll. 65-66. According to Chiang et al. [2013], the remaining one type is "no airglow intensity enhancement". This reviewer recommends the authors to change "four types" to "three types" in this manuscript, and also add a word "enhancement" at the part describing "global midnight brightness" to describe apparently enhancement of the 630-nm airglow intensity.

-- LL. 250 and 257
Unit of "S" can be described as Rayleigh, defined as a column emission rate of 10^10
photons per square meter per column per second.

-- Figure 3a shows neutral temperature dependence of k_3[O], k_1[N2], and k_2[O2]. It is useful for the reader to describe the temperature dependences of coefficients (k_3, k_1, and k_2) and densities ([O], [N2], and [O2]) separately to show each contribution to the temperature dependence of the volume emission rate. When the neutral temperature increases
from 660 K to 900 K, k_1 and k_2 decrease by 6% and 4%, respectively, and k_3 increases by 7%. Therefore, it is found that temperature dependence of the three parameters shown in Figure 3a (k_3[O], k_1[N2], and k_2[O2]) are mainly ascribed to that of the atomic and molecular densities ([O], [N2], and [O2]), and that the coefficients (k_3, k_1, and k_2) does not change significantly.

-- Last comment of the previous review report
L. 916, Figure 2 --> Figure 3
was a mistake by this reviewer. This reviewer apologize the authors.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (22 Jul 2018)

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (25 Jul 2018) by Keisuke Hosokawa

AR by Chih-Yu Chiang on behalf of the Authors (31 Aug 2018) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (11 Sep 2018) by Keisuke Hosokawa

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (09 Oct 2018)

ED: Publish as is (12 Oct 2018) by Keisuke Hosokawa

Short summary

Based on our simulation results, both temperature change and meridional neutral wind could cause the 630.0 nm nightglow intensity to vary, while the latter is more effective. An unexpected aspect of the results is the non-monotonic dependence of the emission rate on temperature, featuring a turning point as the temperature changes. Our findings of these turning temperature tendencies can guide future modeling attempts to match the observed nightglow brightness intensities.