the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 09 Nov 2023
Subauroral Crosstalk in POES/Metop TED proton channels
Jan Maik Wissing
Olesya Yakovchuk
Abstract. Particle measurements are used for various purposes. The medium energy channels on the POES/Metop satellites, the MEPED channels, are widely used, for example in atmospheric ionization models, their low energy (eV and keV) counterpart, the TED detector, is not that popular. However the recent rise of the ionization/climate model altitudes will lead to increased interest in these low energy particle measurements.
This paper analyses MEPED and TED particle data from NOAA POES and Metop during 2001–2018 and shows that in particlular the TED proton channels (but also MEPED electron channels and MEPED proton channels P2 and P3) are contaminated by high background levels a L < 6. In some channels that may surpass typical auroral levels. We determined a Kp and channel dependent latitude boundary that might be used as (preliminary) cut of the contaminated area.
- Preprint
(532 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Jan Maik Wissing and Olesya Yakovchuk
Status: open (until 21 Dec 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on angeo-2023-33', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Nov 2023
reply
The paper investigates the quality of the POES/Metop TED proton channels, in particular the cross-talk-produced background in proton channels at sub-auroral latitudes. The paper aims at establishing a Kp and channel dependent latitudinal cut of the cross-talk dominated area that should be excluded from analyses. The topic is important since the interest in the low-energy data is increasing due to the connection with atmospheric ionisation related to climate models.
The presentation is clear apart from some minor language issues, typos, and a small issue with Fig. 2 (see minor comments). The conclusions reached by the authors (highlighting cross-talk contaminated proton fluxes) are substantial. The title and the abstract are pertinent and understandable. Appropriate credit is given to earlier work, as far as I am aware.
The only substantive comment on the analysis I have is that the authors are clumping all longitudes into one although the effects of contamination seem to be very different in the various (APEX 110 km) longitude and between north and south. I wonder if the data could be used in a bit broader latitude range if the longitude would be pieced in sectors. Also the clear north-south asymmetry might be considered. The contaminating electrons drift eastward and their mirroring altitudes are different in the north and south hemispheres, which is clearly visible in Fig. 1: in the north, regions between 40° and 120° longitude, for example, are almost free of contamination. Thus, the latitude cutoffs found by the authors might be overly conservative in some spatial regions. This could be pointed out as a topic of further study.
Minor issues:
- line 26: "high relativistic" -> "highly relativistic"
- line 26: "Inspite of these data are" -> "Despite of these data being"
- line 50: "by dividing the energgy range" -> "by dividing by the width of the energy range"
- line 51: "geometric correction factors" -> "geometric factors" (?)
- line 55: "high-energetic" -> "high-energy"
- line 56: "high-energetic" -> "high-energy"
- line 78: "Therefore is" -> "Therefore it"
- line 87: "prominantly" -> "prominently"
- line 92: "in mod. APEX" spell out the abbreviation!
- line 111: "dropc" -> "drops"
- line 122: "(Yando et al., 2011)" -> "Yando et al. (2011)"
- Fig. 2: the vertical lines are not very visible at first glance on top of the curves. Please consider making them longer, for example, to allow the reader to spot them immediately.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2023-33-RC1
Jan Maik Wissing and Olesya Yakovchuk
Jan Maik Wissing and Olesya Yakovchuk
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 6 | 2 | 23 | 2 | 3 |
- HTML: 15
- PDF: 6
- XML: 2
- Total: 23
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1