Dear Authors,
As you can see from the reviewer's reports, there are different opinions on the manuscript quality, its clearance or the presented findings.

Although referees #2 and 3 find the study interesting and suggests major/minor revisions, referee #1 has serious concerns about the manuscript novelty suggesting rejection of the manuscript.

The paper may become acceptable after major revisions, resubmission and must be reviewed again.

Originality and novelty of the paper are essential and the related questions raised by the referee #1 must be clearly accounted for before consideration of publication. Your responses in the interactive discussion are not fully sufficient in this way as there is no specific suggestion of the changes in the manuscript – a discussion regarding the paper novelty and specific utilization of the 16Hz samplings should be included in the revised version. As for the other comments (also by referee #2 and 3) your responses in the interactive discussion are adequate and related changes should incorporated.

Please revise the paper according to the remarks of the reviewers point by point and submit a revised version along with your comments (for details see “author's response” part in the “File submission for review process” section at http://www.annales-geophysicae.net/for_authors/submit_your_manuscript.html).


Kind Regards,

Petr Pisoft

Dear Authors,
There are still very different opinions on the manuscript quality, its clearance or the presented findings. Similarly to the previous reviews, referees #1 and 3 find the study interesting and suggests minor revisions/acceptance, but referee #2 has serious concerns about the manuscript novelty as well as relevance of some of your responses to the reviewers' comments.

The paper may become acceptable after major revisions and will be reviewed by a new set of referees (you are encouraged to suggest some experts too).

As for the specific points raised by the referees I recommend to focus on the suggestion of the frequency analysis and general utilization of the 16Hz samplings by referee #2 and the comment by the referee #3.

Please revise the paper according to the remarks of the reviewers point by point and submit a revised version along with your comments (for details see “author's response” part in the “File submission for review process” section at http://www.annales-geophysicae.net/for_authors/submit_your_manuscript.html).


Kind Regards,

Petr Pisoft

Dear Authors,
The referees find the revised manuscript ready for the publication. But they also suggest some minor revisions.

Apart from several technical correction, referee #2 has suggested implementation of magnetic field data analysis too. Please take this into account and reflect on the suggestion in the extension of the presented analysis, in the discussion or as a supplementary material.

Please revise the paper according to the remarks of the reviewers point by point and submit a revised version along with your comments (for details see “author's response” part in the “File submission for review process” section at http://www.annales-geophysicae.net/for_authors/submit_your_manuscript.html).

Kind Regards,

Petr Pisoft