O(¹S), OH, and O₂(b) airglow layer perturbations due to AGWs and their implied effects on the atmosphere

Abstract

[1] The O( 1 S) (green line) night airglow emission in response to atmospheric gravity wave (AGW) perturbations was simulated with a linear, one-dimensional model. The results were combined with previously modeled O 2 (b, 0-1) atmospheric band and OH Meinel band emission response to derive amplitude and phase relations among multiple airglow layers in response to gravity waves with various intrinsic parameters and damping rates (b). The simulations show that the vertical profile of the standard deviation of the perturbed green line volume emission rate (VER) has a centroid altitude that is 3 km lower and a full-width-half-maximum 2.1 km smaller than the unperturbed VER profile, similar to findings for the OH and O 2 (b) band layers. Relative phase differences and amplitudes of vertically propagating waves can be deduced from zenith observations of the layers. Airglow weighted responses to waves are related through a cancellation factor (CF) for both layer intensity and temperature. The vertical wavelength can be deduced from relative phase information of three airglow layers separated in altitude. The vertical flux of horizontal momentum associated with gravity waves is deduced from intrinsic wave parameters. Wave damping versus altitude is used to deduce the flux divergence and local accelerations resulting from dissipative waves. The simulations are useful in calculating wave information and wave effects on the atmosphere from multiwavelength, zenith airglow observations.

Atmospheric wave induced O<sub>2</sub> and OH airglow intensity variations: effect of vertical wavelength and damping

“…The negative trend indicates that when the phase difference is small, normally for a longer period of oscillation, the ratio is high, i.e., larger amplitude of variation in O 2 than that of OH. According to the model calculations of Liu and Swenson (2003) and Vargas et al (2007), the phase difference between the two emissions is a function of vertical wavelength. It is not sensitive to the period of variation (Vargas et al, 2007).…”

“…According to the model calculations of Liu and Swenson (2003) and Vargas et al (2007), the phase difference between the two emissions is a function of vertical wavelength. It is not sensitive to the period of variation (Vargas et al, 2007). Using relationship between the phase difference and the vertical wavelength presented by Vargas et al (2007), Fig.…”

“…From the relation between the amplitude of oscillation and vertical wavelength obtained by Vargas et al (2007), we also estimated the vertical wavelength of the observed short period (2-10 h) oscillations and the wave damping effect. The discussion will be focused on the wave damping rate in the MLT region.…”

“…Many works on the gravity wave and tides using the η values have been written Hickey, 1988a, b;Reisin and Scheer, 1996;Taori and Taylor, 2006). However, η includes various other unknown parameters, such as the variation of local oxygen photochemistry (Hickey et al, 1993), and height variation of the emission layer which affects emission rates and temperature directly (Liu and Swenson, 2003;Vargas et al, 2007).…”

“…From their model calculation, they further suggested that the vertical wavelength and damping rate of gravity waves can be derived from the simultaneous measurements of the O 2 and OH emission rates. Vargas et al (2007) extended the model calculation of gravity wave effects on the airglow emission rates, including the OI 557.7 nm emission in addition to the O 2 and OH emissions.…”