Contribution of meteor flux in the occurrence of sporadic-E (Es) layers over the Arabian Peninsula

Shaikh, Muhammad Mubasshir; Gopakumar, Govardan; Al-owais, Aisha Abdulla; Sharif, Maryam Essa; Fernini, Ilias

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-39-471-2021

Articles | Volume 39, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-39-471-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-39-471-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 39, issue 3

Regular paper

|

28 May 2021

Regular paper |

| 28 May 2021

Contribution of meteor flux in the occurrence of sporadic-E (Es) layers over the Arabian Peninsula

Muhammad Mubasshir Shaikh, Govardan Gopakumar, Aisha Abdulla Al-owais, Maryam Essa Sharif, and Ilias Fernini

Download

Final revised paper (published on 28 May 2021)
Preprint (discussion started on 24 Nov 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Comments on the manuscript angeo-2020-74', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Dec 2020
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Muhammad Mubasshir Shaikh, 03 Jan 2021
RC2: 'Comments on the manuscript angeo-2020-74', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Dec 2020
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Muhammad Mubasshir Shaikh, 03 Jan 2021

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (07 Jan 2021) by Ana G. Elias

AR by Muhammad Mubasshir Shaikh on behalf of the Authors (09 Jan 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (11 Jan 2021) by Ana G. Elias

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (08 Feb 2021)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (11 Feb 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This article had a significant improvement, and the results are significant. In this version, there are just too many small English mistakes. Some examples are listed below. However, I suggest that the authors revise these little mistakes in all the text.

The article “the” is missing in a lot of parts. I cited here some examples, but I suggest the authors review the entire manuscript.
Line 10: Include the article “the” before Es layer.
Line 15-17: Please, divide the last sentence into two parts to avoid confusion to the reader. Also, include the article “the” before the Es layer.
Line 21: Include the article “the” before the word visible.
Line 22: Remove the comma after the word shower. And revise the comma in all the text.
Line 23: There are instead of there is.
Line 26: Include the article “the” before the word geographical.
Line 30: Include the article “the” before the word lower.
Line 31: Include the article “the” before the word radio.
Line 32: Replace this phrase with: “Detection using visual cameras can only be performed during the night compared to radio-based observations that can be performed throughout the day and suitable for estimating total meteor activity.”
Line 36: Remove comma after Kopp.
Line 41: Include the word as after the as well.
Line 41/Line 42/Line 44/Line 46: Include the article “the” before Es layer.
Line 44: Include the article “the” before Arabian.
Line 49: Include the comma after the word paper. And the article “the” before Es layer in all the paragraphs.
Line 55-57: Rewrite the phrases.
Line 59: Replace for: “The meteor counts have been obtained”.
Line 61: “To do so” is so informal. Please, replace it.
Line 62: Include the word with after the along.
Line 67: Replace for “Thus, the STK simulation illustrates how much each tower covers the UAE sky, which adds up to 70% coverage of the sky.”
Line 73: Replace for “…to detect movements from the sudden changes easily in pixel values.”
Line 95: “All the data used in this study are…” instead of “All the data used in this study is”
Line 105: Include the article “the” before Es layer.
Line 108: It is “a 1-year”.
Line 109: It is “an average”.
Line 109-110: Replace for “It is expected that the Es layer observations would be more substantial as the solar cycle gets stronger in the coming years.”
Line 116: Replace for: “Fig 4 compares”.
Line 117: Include the comma before the word “and” and remove it after the word nighttime.
Line 119: Replace for: “…the monthly meteor count shows an opposite trend with a larger number of meteors…”
Line 121: It is “a very similar…”
Line 122: It is “The meteor count is the same…”
Line 127: Include the comma after the Younger et al. (2009), and after Ascension Island (8oS).
Line 129: Include the article the before the word maximum.
Line 136: Replace for “Baggaley and Steel (1984) were unable to find any correlation between meteor activity and Es layers' occurrence.”
Line 143: Replace for “Plasma instabilities cause the abnormalities due to the various electrodynamic processes in the ionosphere.”
Line 146: Replace for “It is shown in Fig 5 that the annual variation of both observations, on average, does not correlate monthly, having linear correlation coefficients less than -0.35 (negative 0.35) for both full-day and nighttime observations.”
Line 156-157: Replace for “unknown”, include the article the before the word transportation, and remove the word also.
Line 174: Replace for “Es layer may not be observed if the meteoric activity period does not provide long-lived metallic ions in the background plasma density.”
Line 176: Replace for “…, leading…”
Line 180: Replace for “of the role…”

Hide

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (12 Feb 2021) by Ana G. Elias

AR by Muhammad Mubasshir Shaikh on behalf of the Authors (21 Feb 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (24 Feb 2021) by Ana G. Elias

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (24 Mar 2021)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (26 Mar 2021) by Ana G. Elias

AR by Muhammad Mubasshir Shaikh on behalf of the Authors (30 Mar 2021) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (11 Apr 2021) by Ana G. Elias

AR by Muhammad Mubasshir Shaikh on behalf of the Authors (12 Apr 2021) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

We report observations of sporadic-E (Es) layers and visual meteor count data simultaneously observed during night-time over the Arabian Peninsula. A constant and well-established presence of Es has been reported with a consistent count of meteors also present throughout the 1-year observation period. Data show that the Es observations are not dependent on the presence of meteor flux; i.e., the presence of meteors is not the main cause of the presence of Es over the Arabian Peninsula.