Reply to Comment by Chang on "Anticyclonic Suppression of the North Pacific Transient Eddy Activity in Midwinter".

Chang (2024, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024gl110011) challenged the methodology proposed recently by Okajima et al. for evaluating cyclonic and anticyclonic contributions to Eulerian eddy statistics and atmospheric energetics based on the local flow curvature. He argued that using the local wind curvature to separate energetic contributions from cyclones and anticyclones is not physically meaningful. Here we argue that his claims are based on an unrealistic assumption of monopolar relative vorticity in an entire storm‐track domain and a meridionally uniform zonal background flow atypical to midlatitudes. We also demonstrate that the error in attributing eddy statistics to cyclones and anticyclones is significantly smaller than his estimation. Rather, we further demonstrate that the curvature‐based methodology effectively eliminates the shear influence to identify cyclonic and anticyclonic regions, which is dismissed in his argument. We conclude that the curvature‐based methodology is beneficial in evaluating distinct cyclonic and anticyclonic contributions to atmospheric energetics in realistic conditions. Plain Language Summary: Chang (2024, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024gl110011) raised a question about the effectiveness of the recent method by Okajima et al. for evaluating cyclonic and anticyclonic contributions separately to eddy statistics based on the local flow curvature. He brings idealized cases to claim that the method by Okajima et al. is not physically meaningful. Here we show that Chang's arguments rely on an unrealistic assumption that an entire storm‐track region contains only one or two isolated cyclonic vorticity patches placed within horizontally uniform westerlies, which are atypical of midlatitudes. We also reveal that the error in attributing eddy statistics to cyclones and anticyclones is much smaller than Chang's result. The curvature‐based method effectively removes the influence of shear vorticity to determine cyclonic and anticyclonic regions, which is overlooked in his argument. We conclude that our curvature‐based method is useful for evaluating the separate contributions of cyclones and anticyclones to atmospheric energetics in realistic conditions in midlatitudes. Key Points: The error in attributing eddy statistics to cyclones and anticyclones is significantly smaller than that presented by Chang (2024, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024gl110011)The arguments of Chang (2024, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024gl110011) are based on the unrealistic assumptions of monopolar vorticity and an atypical background flowThe curvature‐based evaluation of cyclonic and anticyclonic contributions is a practical, beneficial method for realistic flow fields [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]