Magnetodisc modelling in Jupiter's magnetosphere using Juno magnetic field data and the paraboloid magnetic field model

Pensionerov, Ivan A.; Belenkaya, Elena S.; Cowley, Stanley W. H.; Alexeev, Igor I.; Kalegaev, Vladimir V.; Parunakian, David A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-37-101-2019

Articles | Volume 37, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-37-101-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-37-101-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 37, issue 1

Regular paper

|

05 Feb 2019

Regular paper |

| 05 Feb 2019

Magnetodisc modelling in Jupiter's magnetosphere using Juno magnetic field data and the paraboloid magnetic field model

Ivan A. Pensionerov, Elena S. Belenkaya, Stanley W. H. Cowley, Igor I. Alexeev, Vladimir V. Kalegaev, and David A. Parunakian

Download

Final revised paper (published on 05 Feb 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 12 Jul 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'Short comment', Peter Bespalov, 27 Aug 2018
RC1: 'Report on the paper "Analysis of Juno perijove 1 magnetic field data ..." by Pensionerov et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Sep 2018
- AC1: 'Responses to Anonymous Reviewer 1', Ivan Pensionerov, 28 Nov 2018
RC2: 'Report for manusxcript angeo-2018-82', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Oct 2018
- AC2: 'Responses to Anonymous Reviewer 2', Ivan Pensionerov, 28 Nov 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) (06 Dec 2018) by Elias Roussos

AR by Ivan Pensionerov on behalf of the Authors (06 Dec 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 Dec 2018) by Elias Roussos

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (05 Jan 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The paper has been significantly improved, augmented and clarified.

A remaining concern is that the adjusted magnetodisc parameters, now obtained by minimizing the function S in eq. (4) using a nonlinear least squares procedure, are listed in Table 1 without any error bar. As a consequence it is difficult to discuss the significance of the difference between the parameters at Juno and Ulysses epochs, of the global variations of Bdc and Rdc2 across Juno perijoves (and indeed this discussion is very brief in the paper, p.10 l.27-32). For example, why are the parameters for PJ-00 so close to Ulysses' ones and so different from the parameters of the other PJ ? Error bars would help to decide if PJ-00 has simply a larger error or if the difference with other PJ is significant.

Also, what is the origin of the large difference between the Bdc and Rdc2 found now at PJ-01 (2.77 nT & 12.3 Rj) and those found in the initial version of the paper (3.15 nT & 15.8 Rj) ?

Finally, how significant are the obtained parameters considering that you have now demonstrated that the magnetodisc azimuthal current probably depends on r^-α with 1 < α < 2, rather than on r^-2 ?

Minor comments:

Fig. 1 would be easier to understand if the arrows representing Rdc1 and Rdc2 were oriented about 07:00 and 15:00 LT instead of 06:00 and 18:00 LT.

In eq. (2), is there any difference between the ψ in italics or not ? Why is Bi a function of ψ, as it is a field model up to a high order ?

On p.3 l.30 or in the caption of Fig. 2, you may want to precise that ρ is sqrt(x^2+y^2).

In the caption of Table 1, the words "entire pass was covered with current sheet crossings" are not immediately clear. After reading p.7 l.3-7 and re-examining Fig. 2, I finally understood that the usable part of the trajectory corresponds to the inner part where Zjsm (on panel 2) does not oscillates around 0. This could be better indicated on Fig. 2 and formulated in the text.
Would it be possible (and useful) to exclude only the times of actual crossing of the magnetodisc (e.g. for |Zgsm| < some threshold) and thus extend the interval of the fit to larger radial distances ?

On Fig. 7, the comparison between the CAN and the paraboloid models is not easy to make. Perhaps plotting the differences model-(observations-JRM09) would be more clear ?

p.10 l.15: "laggin" => "lagging" ?

p.10 l.30-31: except PJ-00, for which the magnetodisc parameters are very close to Ulysses' ones. Why (see above) ?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (07 Jan 2019) by Elias Roussos

AR by Ivan Pensionerov on behalf of the Authors (18 Jan 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (27 Jan 2019) by Elias Roussos