Solar-eclipse-induced perturbations at mid-latitude during the 21 August 2017 event

Adekoya, Bolarinwa J.; Adebesin, Babatunde O.; David, Timothy W.; Ikubanni, Stephen O.; Adebiyi, Shola J.; Bolaji, Olawale S.; Chukwuma, Victor U.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-37-171-2019

Articles | Volume 37, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-37-171-2019

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-37-171-2019

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

Articles | Volume 37, issue 2

Regular paper

|

28 Mar 2019

Regular paper |

| 28 Mar 2019

Solar-eclipse-induced perturbations at mid-latitude during the 21 August 2017 event

Bolarinwa J. Adekoya, Babatunde O. Adebesin, Timothy W. David, Stephen O. Ikubanni, Shola J. Adebiyi, Olawale S. Bolaji, and Victor U. Chukwuma

Download

Final revised paper (published on 28 Mar 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 03 May 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'Could you answer this questions for me, thank you very much!', Qiaoling LI, 19 May 2018
- SC2: 'Interactive comment on “Solar eclipse induced perturbations at mid-latitude during the 21 August 2017 event” by Bolarinwa J. Adekoya et al', Bolarinwa Adekoya, 21 May 2018
RC1: 'Report on angeo-2018-35 manuscript', Ljiljana R. Cander, 05 Jun 2018
- AC1: 'Author's response to comments on “Solar eclipse induced perturbations at mid-latitude during the 21 August 2017 event” by Bolarinwa J. Adekoya et al', Bolarinwa Adekoya, 12 Jun 2018
RC2: 'Some comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Jun 2018
- AC2: 'Author's response to comments on “Solar eclipse induced perturbations at mid-latitude during the 21 August 2017 event” by Bolarinwa J. Adekoya et al', Bolarinwa Adekoya, 29 Jun 2018

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (10 Jul 2018) by Steve Milan

AR by Bolarinwa Adekoya on behalf of the Authors (11 Jul 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (02 Aug 2018) by Steve Milan

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (12 Sep 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Compared to first version of manuscript, the second one has been revised a little, however, some critical questions are still existent.

For Comment 2 of first version of manuscript, the authors corrected “percentage obscuration” but didn’t correct “percentage deviation” in the manuscript.

As shown in Comment 7 of first version of manuscript, these parameters are rarely used in the study of solar eclipse. I knew the use of these parameters in your study is a novel way. But I think being convincing is more important. So the authors didn’t answer my question directly.

In Figures 1 and 2, it is clear that NmF2 goes down during eclipse time, but for hmF2, scale height, bottomeside, the curves fluctuate sharply, with a lot of spikes, so it is hard to draw a convincing conclusion.

Line 141-143, the authors said "The ionosphere over Eglin AFB, Boulder, Point Arguello, Millstone Hill and Idaho National Lab, did not show any contrary variation to that observed at Austin during the eclipse event. The decrease and increase in NmF2 and hmF2 after the maximum magnitude was simultaneous."
But I don't agree with it. First, I didn't find that NmF2 and hmF2 change simultaneouly. Second, I don't think the variations between these stations are consistent. Please analyse these stations one by one. For example, for NmF2, it is really clear that it goes down from S to M and goes up from M to E. However, for hmF2, it is totally different, as shown in the table below.

The variation of hmF2 during eclipse compared to control day
Station from S to M from M to E
Austin Up Down
Eglin AFB Not available Not available
Boulder No apparent trend Down
Point Arguello Up A valley
Millstone Hill No apparent trend Down
Idaho National Lab No apparent trend Down

Line 175-176, the authors said “It was observed from the plots that the minimum decrease in NmF2 amplitude corresponds to increase in H at all stations”
But at least at Austin and Eglin AFB, I didn’t find the conclusion above.

Line 205-206, the authors said “B1 responded with a decrease at the first contact of the eclipse compared to the control day.”
But at least at Austin, Eglin AFB, Milestone Hill, Idaho National Lab, I didn’t find the conclusion above.

Line 207-209, the authors said “B0 parameter from the first contact increases and reached the maximum peak few minutes after the maximum obscuration magnitude, which coincided with the minimum decrease in B0.”
But at least at Austin, Eglin AFB, Milestone Hill, I didn’t find the conclusion above.

In Figure 1, there are no available data during and after eclipse at Eglin AFB. However, in Figure 3, the percentage of deviation at Eglin AFB is complete. How did you get this?

I have to say, I haven’t yet understood Figure 3. I guess in this figure, DNmF2 is the ratio of the electron density at different height between eclipse day and control day, that is to say, it may be ((Ne)e - (Ne)c)/(Ne)c) x 100, but the authors said “was defined as the ratio of ((NmF2e - NmF2c)/NmF2c) x 100.” So I am really confused by DNmF2. For a certain local time at one station, there are only one NmF2e and one NmF2c.

Moreover, in Figure 3, at Point Arguello, the colour scale didn’t show the green.

For Comment 5 of first version of manuscript, the reviewer asked a questions “Line 241-242, the authors said “The only exception … at Millstone… H versus B0 …” however, it is clear that R is also low for the two figures of IDAHO.”
But this time, in second version of manuscript, Line 262 to 264, the authors said “The only exception where low correlation was observed was at Idaho (0.47) and Millstone (0.37) with respect to the H versus B0 relationship.”
So the correlation at Idaho (0.52) with respect to H versus hmF2 is not an exception? In fact, in Figure 4, only at Point Arguello and Millstone Hill, the correlation is good enough.

If the authors are not able to explain height parameters properly, just showing them directly without convincing processing and analysis, I don't think this manuscript is worth being published.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (13 Dec 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (22 Jan 2019) by Steve Milan

AR by Bolarinwa Adekoya on behalf of the Authors (02 Feb 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (22 Feb 2019) by Steve Milan

AR by Bolarinwa Adekoya on behalf of the Authors (16 Mar 2019) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

We present the dynamics of perturbations during a solar eclipse using rare parameters for eclipse study. Reduction in solar radiation and natural gas heating are the cause of the observed changes. The use of the bottomside F-layer parameters to probe the topside ionosphere established their interrelationship. The implication is that eclipse-caused perturbation could be better explained using some ionosonde parameters.