the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Small- and meso-scale field-aligned auroral current structures, their spatial and temporal characteristics deduced by Swarm constellation
Abstract. Magnetic field recordings by the Swarm A and C spacecraft during the Counter Rotation Orbit phase are used for checking the stationarity of auroral region small-and meso-scale field-aligned currents (FAC). The varying separation between the spacecraft in along- and cross-track direction during this constellation phase allow for determining the spatial and temporal correlation lengths for FAC structures of different along-track wavelengths. We make use of the cross‐correlation analysis to check the agreement of the magnetic signatures at the two spacecraft. When the cross-correlation coefficient exceeds 0.75 at a time lag that equals the along-track time difference, the event is identified as stationary. It is found that meso-scale FACs of along-track wavelength >100 km are primarily stable for more than 40 s and over cross-track separations of 20 km. An important reason for their deselection is the latitudinal motion of the current system. Conversely, stable small-scale FACs (10–75 km wavelength) are found primarily only in a very limited space, up to about 12 km in cross-track and ~18 s in along-track time difference. This class of small-scale FACs is the typical one found commonly in the cusp region and near the midnight sector. Not all the FACs within this limited spatial and temporal regime are stable. In particular for those with high current density occurring during enhanced solar wind input we do not find equivalent signatures at the accompanying satellite. They seem to represent narrow solitary Alfvén wave features.
- Preprint
(9780 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 18 Feb 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on angeo-2024-28', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Jan 2025
reply
This manuscript uses a novel data set from the ESA Swarm mission to examine the extent to which similar magnetic perturbations on different scales, which the manuscript relates to field-aligned currents (FACs), were observed by two of the spacecraft as there azimuthal and along-track separations were varied. The results back up previous results that meso-scale perturbations (~100 km scale) are temporally steady up to a few tens of seconds and beyond 20 km azimuthal extent. There is a more in-depth study of small-scale perturbations, which are shown to be far less steady, particularly when the magnetic perturbations are large and/or there is larger solar wind driving or geomagnetic activity. I find that the results are largely compelling, however I have two major concerns: (1) the study uses a 60 min window to capture the variability of the magnetic field which has been pre-filtered in various pass bands from 1-3s to 39-60s - this fixed window length may introduce an inadvertent bias to the results; (2) the short-period variations that are not well correlated between the two spacecraft passes are discussed as unstable field-aligned currents, but as this is a time-varying magnetic field measurement rather than a direct measurement of the current, it is unclear that this is the only possible interpretation of these results. Given that point (1) above requires some study into the methodology, I recommend that this manuscript be considered after major revisions.
Major Comments:
1) On the methodology
As noted above, I have a concern with regards to the filtering and windowing of the data in the analysis performed. The manuscript details that various time-scales of magnetic field fluctuations are considered in order to examine different scale sizes of potential field-aligned currents (derived from the spacecraft motion in that time). However, the window used to calculate the cross-correlation between the two spacecraft and RMS values of the field remains fixed. As a result, for the smallest scales, there are between ~20 and 60 possible perturbations within the 60s window whereas for the largest scales it is 1-1.5 perturbations. If a some of the small-scale perturbations vary, then the cross-correlation will drop, whereas the whole perturbation has to vary for the largest scales. This, I feel, naturally results in fewer good correlations at the smaller scales. I suggest that the authors explore the sensitivity of their results to varying the length of the window over which they do the cross-correlation. For example, are does the success ratio for the 1-3 s scales increase for a 15 s cross-correlation window. The authors may also need to consider whether the correlation coefficient threshold needs to be increased with the smaller window size such that the P-value is consistent.With regards to the correlation coefficient used, I note that a correlation coefficient of 0.75 means that only 56% of the variability observed by one spacecraft is observed by the other. This feels quite low to say that the observed current systems are stable. There is also no consideration of changes of amplitudes of current that might result in relatively high cross correlations but differences in RMS values.
(2) Discussion of results
This study examines whether or not magnetic perturbations seen by one of the Swarm spacecraft were also seen by a second spacecraft passing through at a slightly later time and at some azimuthal separation. If this is the case, then it is reasonable to assert that these perturbations arise from the quasi-stationary field-aligned current system. However, when the conditions set are not met it does not necessarily follow that it is an unstable current system. I feel it is better to described the observations as temporally or spatially varying magnetic field perturbations. Previous studies using data from Swarm and other spacecraft (e.g. the cited Ishii+ 1992 study and the Pakhotin+ 2018 doi: 10.1002/2017JA024713 study) have shown that large amplitude small-scale magnetic field perturbations may be associated with Alfven wave activity.Minor comments:
Line 44: "at the ionosphere plays a role"
Line 76: please provide a reference for the Swarm L2 data product
Line 77: Swarm A and C do not fly side-by-side, as is a key point of the manuscript. I believe that for the L2 product, one of the datasets is lagged so that it is treated as if they are side by side.
Line 86: As noted above, I was under the impression that the dual spacecraft product is a 2D curlometer, not the mean of two single spacecraft FAC estimates as implied by this line.
Line 90: "the range dual-spacecraft FAC estimates are valid" ?
Line 116: Swarm A and C are not side-by-side by are lagged by a few seconds
Line 122-128: The Zhou et al figure should be referenced here. In fact, I think the Zhou et al figure (or similar) should be included in the manuscript as it is crucial to the study.
Line 178: " For these example passes, we use a 60 s sliding window...". When I first read this I was confused as I thought the whole interval shown was 60 s.
Line 238: "look at the variable magnetic field signal". Given that the introduction discusses the separation of waves and FACs, the current wording was confusing
Line 246-256: It would be helpful to mark some of the intervals of interest on the figure.
Line 248: "practically all magnetic fluctuations above 20 s can be..."
Line 395: give the zonal length in km as well as seconds
Line 397: I don't understand what is meant by "the time between samples is more decisive for the occurrence ratio"
Line 414: My reading of the figure is that d_cross < 3 km is where the ratio exceeds 50%. Please confirm
Line 426-437: Consider also the Pakhotin et al (2018) study that examined Alfven waves using Swarm
Line 444: At line 415, delta-t was noted as 16 s, not 18 s. Please confirm and be consistent
Line 476: specify the size range where it says "in this size"
Line 536: how were the quiet days selected for the calculation of the mean merging field and what is the value of this mean?
Line 540-542: Are these results from another paper? The results shown do not show large amplitude FAC structures are prone to instability nor the the FAC current density largely depends on driving.
Figure 10 and discussion: It would be useful to include an indication of the range of values at each epoch and whether the higher values for "deselected" events are statistically significant.
Line 603 - 607: it is not evident from this study that large amplitude currents are unstable, just that large amplitude small-scale magnetic perturbations do not meet the criteria for stable FACs. They may be signatures of wave activity, something which is not examined in this manuscript.
Line 625-627: this is speculation with no citations and no discussion in the preceding manuscript, so I suggest removing this sentence.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2024-28-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
99 | 22 | 6 | 127 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 99
- PDF: 22
- XML: 6
- Total: 127
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1