Application of generalized aurora computed tomography to the EISCAT_3D project

Tanaka, Yoshimasa; Ogawa, Yasunobu; Kadokura, Akira; Aso, Takehiko; Gustavsson, Björn; Brändström, Urban; Sergienko, Tima; Ueno, Genta; Saita, Satoko

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-42-179-2024

Articles | Volume 42, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-42-179-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-42-179-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 42, issue 1

Regular paper

|

29 May 2024

Regular paper |

| 29 May 2024

Application of generalized aurora computed tomography to the EISCAT_3D project

Yoshimasa Tanaka, Yasunobu Ogawa, Akira Kadokura, Takehiko Aso, Björn Gustavsson, Urban Brändström, Tima Sergienko, Genta Ueno, and Satoko Saita

Download

Final revised paper (published on 29 May 2024)
Preprint (discussion started on 27 Nov 2023)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on angeo-2023-35', M.J. Kosch, 05 Dec 2023

The manuscript demonstrates that it should be possible to use generalized aurora computed tomography to reconstruction the electron density over an area of the ionosphere using multiple simultaneous optical images, thereby extending the radar observations thereof. The manuscript is generally well-written and comprehensive. The paper is nearly ready for publication with a few minor revisions described below:
L211: "artifact" should be "artefact". More importantly, the non-expert eye cannot know where the artefact in Figure 5 is. Please describe it or point it out clearly.
L215: "significantly improved", L217: "better improved", L269: "greatly improved", L271: "better improved", L288: "much lower" are all subjective statements. "significantly", "better", "greatly" and "much" mean different things to different readers. The authors should quantify what they mean by these subjective descriptors please.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2023-35-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yoshimasa Tanaka, 20 Dec 2023
  
  We give our reply to the referee's comments in the attached PDF file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2023-35-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on angeo-2023-35', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Jan 2024

Please see attached pdf.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2023-35-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yoshimasa Tanaka, 09 Feb 2024
  
  We give our reply to the referee's comments in the attached PDF file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2023-35-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (14 Feb 2024) by Keisuke Hosokawa

AR by Yoshimasa Tanaka on behalf of the Authors (05 Mar 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (08 Mar 2024) by Keisuke Hosokawa

ED: Publish as is (15 Mar 2024) by Keisuke Hosokawa

AR by Yoshimasa Tanaka on behalf of the Authors (27 Mar 2024)

Short summary

We present via simulation how useful monochromatic images taken by a multi-point imager network are for auroral research in the EISCAT_3D project. We apply the generalized-aurora computed tomography (G-ACT) to modeled multiple auroral images and ionospheric electron density data. It is demonstrated that G-ACT provides better reconstruction results than the normal ACT and can interpolate ionospheric electron density at a much higher spatial resolution than observed by the EISCAT_3D radar.