the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Determination of Vertical Profiles of Shell Currents in the Ionosphere
Abstract. In previous works, we found Euler potentials for the combined magnetic field of Earth’s dipole, field aligned currents, ring current, and the magnetopause surface currents (represented by Dungey’s term), in the magnetosphere. Field aligned currents, also known as the Birkeland currents, experience closure in the ionosphere, through the shell-current patterns, also known as the Pedersen and Cowley currents. Field aligned currents can be measured at an altitude of 800 km, farther, or closer, and can be reconstructed in the entire magnetosphere with tracing along the magnetic field lines. The determination of shell currents is more difficult. They can only be measured in the ionosphere, because they form a closure of field aligned currents in the ionosphere. Analytical and numerical modelings of the shell currents are not easy tasks and require knowledge of the conductivity tensor in the ionosphere. We propose an alternative approach for the shell currents modeling. In this paper, we determine current density distribution in a finite thickness ionosphere. Our system consists of the ionosphere, a region above it (outer region) and a region below it (inner region). The dipole field is present in the entire system. In addition, there is a field generated by the field aligned currents in the outer region. We search for a continuation of these currents into the ionosphere, for shell currents.
- Preprint
(511 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on angeo-2024-22', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Dec 2024
The authors present an analytical calculation for the shell currents in a thin-layer model for the ionosphere. This is in principle an interesting topic, relevant to this journal, and the paper is generally well written. However, there is one major premise that the authors should better justify: the use of a tanh function for BΦ. The main results of the paper depend strongly on this shape of BΦ. For example the conclusion that the currents are maximum in the middle of the layer is to be expected from this assumption by arguments from symmetry.
It is true, as the authors mention, that this step-up function is widely used in various models. However, it is usually employed in the case of homogenous media. The thermosphere/ionosphere system, even when only considered between 100 and 400 km, is certainly not homogenous. There will be significant vertical gradients in neutral and plasma densities, temperatures, composition, etc. Thus, it is not evident why a highly symmetric function such as tanh is appropriate here.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2024-22-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Evgeny Romashets, 08 Jan 2025
Thank you for very useful suggestions and comments.
- The results of calculations depend on Bphi outside of the ionosphere, as it is the input of the model. Different Bphi will lead to different profiles in the ionosphere.
- We divide the ionosphere into four intervals which allows to consider inhomogeneities in r direction. The tanh function is used on every interval. On the other hand, because the problem of finding the magnetic field in the ionosphere is solved locally, for specific phi and theta, this will describe inhomogeneities in phi and theta directions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2024-22-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Evgeny Romashets, 08 Jan 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on angeo-2024-22', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Dec 2024
The manuscript titled "Determination of Vertical Profiles of Shell Currents in the Ionosphere" by Romashets and Vandas extends their work published as Romashets and Vandas (2020) and proposes an alternative approach for the modeling of shell currents in the ionosphere. This paper is well-written and the mathematical equations are properly derived. As the topic of the manuscript is within the scope of Annales Geophysicae, I recommend it to be accepted with a minor revision.
Minor comments:
1. My suggestion is that the authors can include an appendix of the symbols that they have used for the equations and include a brief description of them for the ease of the readers.
2. My second comment stems from the fact that the authors have not presented any comparison of their results from other manuscripts. Has the shell currents in the ionosphere not been derived from any other methods in literature or the approach that the authors have presented is the only one so far? If any such approach has been mentioned previously in literature, then the authors should compare their results and present the benefits of their approach. For example, is their approach leading to better accuracy or is it easier to implement or is it better in terms of comparison with observational data? I found this aspect to be missing in the discussions so far and this part should be worked upon as it will give a broader perspective to the readers.
Apart from these comments, I found the manuscript to be free from typos and grammatical errors and hence I recommend it to be accepted after these revisions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2024-22-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Evgeny Romashets, 08 Jan 2025
Thank you for very useful suggestions and comments.
- We will add an appendix with the symbols description or give more detailed introduction of the symbols in the text.
- We have not found in literature attempts to model vertical profiles of the magnetic field in the ionosphere. Empirical models provide FAC and the magnetic field induced by FAC above the ionosphere.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2024-22-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Evgeny Romashets, 08 Jan 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
137 | 28 | 10 | 175 | 9 | 7 |
- HTML: 137
- PDF: 28
- XML: 10
- Total: 175
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1