Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2021-34
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2021-34
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
23 Jun 2021
| 23 Jun 2021
Status: this preprint was under review for the journal ANGEO but the revision was not accepted.
Latitude Oscillations of Zonal Mean Total Electron Content and Super-Fountain Effects Provided from Global GNSS Stations
Abstract. Seasonal and latitude oscillations of equatorial ionization anomaly (EIA) were investigated by zonal mean total electron content (TEC) provided from global gridded GNSS data from 1999 to 2017. Maximum monthly zonal mean TEC values showed NH spring equinox’s value is higher than fall's. Some fluctuations are observed due to upward planetary wave propagation in equinoxes and winter especially in low solar activity. Two cases of super-fountain effect were also clearly detected on zonal mean TEC.
How to cite. Joghataei, M., Jooyandeh, N., and Memarian, M. H.: Latitude Oscillations of Zonal Mean Total Electron Content and Super-Fountain Effects Provided from Global GNSS Stations, Ann. Geophys. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2021-34, 2021.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Download & links
- Preprint
(1328 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(784 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on angeo-2021-34', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jul 2021
The manuscript present TEC variations using 19 years of IONEX data. The manuscript is not well presented and the methodology adopted is questionable. The novelty and new understanding form the present study is not visible. Overall, the manuscript is not upto the standards of the journal. The manuscript needs major revisions addressing following issues.
- The main objective of the present work is not described. In the introduction, the main objective of the study, related background and importance of present objective must be stated clearly.
- Data analysis: For zonal mean TEC estimation, whether geographic latitude is considered or geomagnetic latitude. It looks like that the geographic latitude is considered. If so, the on global scales, the geomagnetic equator vary significantly and any geographic latitude range do not have same geomagnetic latitude. So, the derived zonal mean TEC provides erroneous and suppressed information of EIA since EIA structure is geomagnetic latitude dependent.
- Statement on planetary wave signatures is too superficial without suitable wave analysis. I am also not sure, whether the wave features can be persistent after averaging TEC over the complete globe.
- Table 1: What does 0.1 TECU represent written after ‘Maximum zonal-mean TEC average’ ?
- Figures 4, 5, 6: The figures are not clear. Axis labels, tick labels and legends are not at all visible.
- Line 65: What is meant by ‘Maximum diurnal of TEC location’ ?
- Lines 65-68: The sentence is not clear and must be rewritten.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2021-34-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mohammad Joghataei, 05 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://angeo.copernicus.org/preprints/angeo-2021-34/angeo-2021-34-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on angeo-2021-34', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jul 2021
‘Latitude Oscillations of Zonal Mean Total Electron Content and Super-Fountain Effects Provided from Global GNSS Stations’
Submitted to
Annales Geophysicae
By
Mohammad Joghataei et al.
This work shows interesting results, but the article needs to improve a lot. There are a lot of English mistakes. Therefore, I recommend major revision with improvement in discussions, the logic of this article, and English before publication.
Comments:
- Abstract: The abstract is not well written. The authors need to clarify better the purpose of this work.
- Lines 49-51: This phrase is a little confusing about the pre-reversal enhancement. Please, rewrote.
- The technique used by the authors is well-known, and the physics about the EIA climatology is very discussed in the scientific community. What is the novel of this work? For me, it is not clear. The authors mention that the latitudinal interconnection of zonal mean TEC is the new subject, but they need to discuss more.
- The authors need to discuss Table 1.
- Lines250-265: I do not understand the relationship between planetary waves, the results of the authors, and the Es layer occurrences. Also, the wind shear mechanisms occur in the E region heights, and they do not relate to the TEC values and the planetary waves. Also, Abdu et al. (2003) studied the electric field of the pre-reversal enhancement and the Es layer development. The wind occurred all the time, forming the Es layer at low and mid-latitudes. I think that there was confusion in the physical mechanisms. Please, clarify this part.
- The authors show the results about the Fountain effect, but they do not discuss this behavior deeply. I think that the results are great, but they need to discuss better.
- There are a lot of English language mistakes. Please, revise this.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2021-34-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mohammad Joghataei, 05 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://angeo.copernicus.org/preprints/angeo-2021-34/angeo-2021-34-AC2-supplement.pdf
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on angeo-2021-34', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jul 2021
The manuscript present TEC variations using 19 years of IONEX data. The manuscript is not well presented and the methodology adopted is questionable. The novelty and new understanding form the present study is not visible. Overall, the manuscript is not upto the standards of the journal. The manuscript needs major revisions addressing following issues.
- The main objective of the present work is not described. In the introduction, the main objective of the study, related background and importance of present objective must be stated clearly.
- Data analysis: For zonal mean TEC estimation, whether geographic latitude is considered or geomagnetic latitude. It looks like that the geographic latitude is considered. If so, the on global scales, the geomagnetic equator vary significantly and any geographic latitude range do not have same geomagnetic latitude. So, the derived zonal mean TEC provides erroneous and suppressed information of EIA since EIA structure is geomagnetic latitude dependent.
- Statement on planetary wave signatures is too superficial without suitable wave analysis. I am also not sure, whether the wave features can be persistent after averaging TEC over the complete globe.
- Table 1: What does 0.1 TECU represent written after ‘Maximum zonal-mean TEC average’ ?
- Figures 4, 5, 6: The figures are not clear. Axis labels, tick labels and legends are not at all visible.
- Line 65: What is meant by ‘Maximum diurnal of TEC location’ ?
- Lines 65-68: The sentence is not clear and must be rewritten.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2021-34-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mohammad Joghataei, 05 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://angeo.copernicus.org/preprints/angeo-2021-34/angeo-2021-34-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on angeo-2021-34', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jul 2021
‘Latitude Oscillations of Zonal Mean Total Electron Content and Super-Fountain Effects Provided from Global GNSS Stations’
Submitted to
Annales Geophysicae
By
Mohammad Joghataei et al.
This work shows interesting results, but the article needs to improve a lot. There are a lot of English mistakes. Therefore, I recommend major revision with improvement in discussions, the logic of this article, and English before publication.
Comments:
- Abstract: The abstract is not well written. The authors need to clarify better the purpose of this work.
- Lines 49-51: This phrase is a little confusing about the pre-reversal enhancement. Please, rewrote.
- The technique used by the authors is well-known, and the physics about the EIA climatology is very discussed in the scientific community. What is the novel of this work? For me, it is not clear. The authors mention that the latitudinal interconnection of zonal mean TEC is the new subject, but they need to discuss more.
- The authors need to discuss Table 1.
- Lines250-265: I do not understand the relationship between planetary waves, the results of the authors, and the Es layer occurrences. Also, the wind shear mechanisms occur in the E region heights, and they do not relate to the TEC values and the planetary waves. Also, Abdu et al. (2003) studied the electric field of the pre-reversal enhancement and the Es layer development. The wind occurred all the time, forming the Es layer at low and mid-latitudes. I think that there was confusion in the physical mechanisms. Please, clarify this part.
- The authors show the results about the Fountain effect, but they do not discuss this behavior deeply. I think that the results are great, but they need to discuss better.
- There are a lot of English language mistakes. Please, revise this.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2021-34-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mohammad Joghataei, 05 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://angeo.copernicus.org/preprints/angeo-2021-34/angeo-2021-34-AC2-supplement.pdf
Viewed
Total article views: 931 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 23 Jun 2021)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 664 | 216 | 51 | 931 | 99 | 43 | 46 |
- HTML: 664
- PDF: 216
- XML: 51
- Total: 931
- Supplement: 99
- BibTeX: 43
- EndNote: 46
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 898 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 898 with geography defined
and 0 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Latest update: 13 Dec 2024
Department of Physics, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
Niloofar Jooyandeh
Department of Physics, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
Mohammad Hossein Memarian
Department of Physics, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
Short summary
The ionosphere is one of the important layers of the atmosphere that affect the transmission of radio waves. In equatorial ionosphere anomaly (EIA) the lifted plasma diffuses downward on both sides of magnetic equator and creates two crests. The values of monthly zonal means of TEC are separated and shows fluctuations due to upward planetary wave propagation in equinoxes and winter. In addition, two cases of super-fountain effect (contain Halloween solar storm) were detected on zonal mean TEC.
The ionosphere is one of the important layers of the atmosphere that affect the transmission of...