Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2020-52
https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2020-52

  04 Dec 2020

04 Dec 2020

Review status: this preprint has been withdrawn by the authors.

Comment on Invariability of relationship between the polar cap magnetic activity and geoeffective interplanetary electric field by Troshichev et al. (2011)

Peter Stauning Peter Stauning
  • Danish Meteorological Institute, Lyngbyvej 100, Copenhagen

Abstract. In the publication Troshichev et al. (2006) on the Polar Cap (PC) indices, PCN (North) and PCS (South), an error was made by using components of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) in their Geocentric Solar Ecliptic (GSE) representation instead of the prescribed Geocentric Solar Magnetosphere (GSM) representation for calculations of index scaling parameters in the version AARI_1998-2001 (named AARI#3) issued from the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) in St Petersburg, Russia. The mistake has caused a trail of incorrect relations and wrong conclusions extending since 2006 up to now (2020). The authors of the publication commented here, Troshichev, Podorozhkina, Janzhura (2011): Invariability of relationship between the polar cap magnetic activity and geoeffective interplanetary electric field, Ann. Geophys., 29, 1479-1489, state that they have used scaling parameters of the (invalid) AARI#3 PC index version in their work but have substituted parameters from the more recent AARI_1995-2005 (AARI#4) version instead. The mingling of PC index versions have resulted in erroneous illustrations in their Figs. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 and the issuing of non-substantiated statements.

This preprint has been withdrawn.

Peter Stauning

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Peter Stauning

Peter Stauning

Viewed

Total article views: 342 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
294 44 4 342 3 3
  • HTML: 294
  • PDF: 44
  • XML: 4
  • Total: 342
  • BibTeX: 3
  • EndNote: 3
Views and downloads (calculated since 04 Dec 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 04 Dec 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 301 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 301 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 19 Apr 2021
Download

This preprint has been withdrawn.

Short summary
In Troshichev et al. (2006) an error was made in the calculations of Polar Cap (PC) index scaling parameters. For the publication commented here, Troshichev et al. (2011), the authors state having used scaling parameters of the invalid PC index version but have actually substituted parameters from another version instead. The mingling of PC index versions has resulted in erroneous illustrations in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 and the issuing of non-substantiated statements.