Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-12T18:07:43.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

First observations of Polar Mesospheric Echoes at both 31 MHz and 53.5 MHz over Svalbard (78.2°N 15.1°E)

Subject: Earth and Environmental Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2020

Chris Hall*
Affiliation:
Tromsø Geophysical Observatory, UiT – The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
Chris Adami
Affiliation:
ATRAD Pty. Ltd., Thebarton, Australia
Masaki Tsutsumi
Affiliation:
National Institute of Polar Research, Tokyo, Japan
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: chris.hall@uit.no

Abstract

During summer 2020, observations of the mesosphere using a 53.5 MHz radar on Svalbard, at 78.2°N 15.1°E, revealed the well-known Polar Mesospheric Summer Echoes (PMSE). At the same time, a co-located meteor detection radar, operating at 31 MHz detected corresponding echoes very distinct from those associated with meteor trails. Comparing as many days as possible during 2020, incontestable evidence arose to demonstrate that the meteor detection radar was capable of observing PMSE, although not in the optimised fashion of the 53.5 MHz system. We present examples of results from both systems, supplementing the earlier findings of Swarnalingam et al. (2009), and simultaneously show very first results from this particular geographical location.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Supplementary result, Novel result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Echo power as a function of height and time, and as mean power for the two radars from 31st May 2020. Top row: the 53.5 MHz SOUSY radar; bottom row: the 31 MHz NSMR system; left column: power vs. height and time; right column: corresponding mean power vs. height for the day.

Reviewing editor:  Jacob Carley NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction, NCEP/Environmental Modeling Center, 5830 University Research Cour, College Park, Maryland, United States, 20740
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and has been sent for additional statistical evaluation and met required revisions.

Review 1: First observations of Polar Mesospheric Echoes at both 31MHz and 53.5MHz over Svalbard (78.2°N 15.1°E)

Conflict of interest statement

the reviewer declares no conflict of interest

Comments

Comments to the Author: The paper presents PMSE observations from both MST and meteor radars located on Svalbard. While the SOUSY radar is frequency-wise optimised for PMSE detection the NSMR is not. Being able to observe PMSEs with the meteor radar systems as well can significantly aid the future PMSE studies. As the authors point out, the meteor radar capabilities in the PMSE detection are very little investigated. One previous study is cited in this paper. The report would benefit from a little more detailing of this previous study by Swarnalingam et al. (2009), because it would allow emphasising the value of the presented Svalbard observations (frequency, latitude, co-location, length of data series…).

For the example day of data comparing SOUSY and NSMR measurements it would be helpful to include a grid in the mean power profile plots to guide the eye in reading the peak heights. Although clearly worth another more detailed study, it would make sense to point out the obvious differences in the PMSE echo strength and echo occurrence between the two radar systems.

Presentation

Overall score 5 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
3 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.2 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
3 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
5 out of 5

Review 2: First observations of Polar Mesospheric Echoes at both 31MHz and 53.5MHz over Svalbard (78.2°N 15.1°E)

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to the Author: The PMSE backscatter signals seem strong, and broad-beam meteor radar detects PMSE. It is an interesting result, in particular, observing PMSE using co-located SOUCY and NSMR radars. This would provide opportunities to study different scales of turbulent eddy structures, as well as the frequency dependence of PMSE.

Presentation

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
5 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of theexperiment clearly outlined? (20%)
5 out of 5