A Tropical Cyclone or Typhoon as an Element of the Earth–Atmosphere–Ionosphere–Magnetosphere System: Theory, Simulations, and Observations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The author gave a detailed description of the ocean–atmosphere–ionosphere–magnetosphere system focusing on the tropical cyclone (TC, typhoon) as a valuable part of this system. I think it is a very important review paper. The manuscript is well organized, the previous studies and the principal theory is comprehensively described. 

I have only some minor comments, otherwise I support the publication of this review paper:

- It is a very detailed review about the different mechanisms generated by the TC influencing the ocean–atmosphere–ionosphere–magnetosphere system. Therefore, the manuscript is a bit long and the observational section (12. Observations) contains the results coming from only one type of measurement method (HF oblique Doppler sounding system). This observation thechnique is able to detec the ionospheric variations caused by the AGWs and infrasound waves. However, the author detail in the previous section other mechanisms generated by the TC (electordinamical and ecetrostatical coupling) that can cause variation in the ionosphere and the observation of them are not described. Therefore, I suggest to consider to submit this manuscript separately as 2 review papers, one focusing on the mechanical coupling with the present observations and a separate one completed the theoretical description of the electrodinamical and quasi-electrostatic coupling with recent observation of them from the literature. It is only an advice, that the two separate manuscripts could be more readable and more valuable in this case. 

- L452-454 : Based on the literature the lightning-induced quasi-electrostatic (QE) fields penetrate only into the lower ionosphere, maximum 90-100 km height: see please e.g. Marshall, 2012, Gordillo-Vázquez et al., 2016, Barta et al. 2017. Therefore, I miss a reference for this state. 
Connected to this comment: Section 11.2 and 11.3 The author writes the details of the electric current of the atmsophere and the generation of the Electric fields very properly. There is only one thing that I miss, how deeply the electric field can penetrate into the ionosphere? How the quasi-static electric field is coupled with the magnetosphere? Can you strengthen also the answer with some previous observations from the literature(not only [14] and [15])?

- L802 The used frequency (~6MHz) are generally reflected from the F1 layer during the daytime at midlatitudes.  To be sure the from which ionospheric layers the signal has been reflected it is worthwhile to check the ionograms near by during the observation time.  

- On the Figs 3-5 the calmer, reference days are not shown but they are mentioned in the text. I suggest to show at least 1-2 examples, in this case the reader could compare the disturbed condition with the reference days. 

- The year is missing in some places in the reference list. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has put in a lot of efforts to comprehend and review the observations/effects of tropical cyclone effect on atmosphere-ionosphere-coupling process. This manuscript is recommended for publication with following two minor comments. 

The following two mechanisms at lines 80 and 83, i.e., "acoustic–gravity mechanism", and "lightning discharges ... are capable of heating electrons" are introduced in singles sentences with references.   I would recommend the author to include a few lines of text to quickly describe these process without directing the readers to go the reference to under basic theory or hypothesis, eventually readers will go to references for greater understanding; without these basic explanations the readers may lose interest. 

At lines 1115 & 1116, the author describes about a schematic model for process described in the manuscript, which is absent in the current manuscript; perhaps the author may be referring to the parts of the sections 9 and 10 which describes the processes.   But the readers may look for a schematic or diagram indicating the processes flow. Therefore, I request the author either to rephrase the sentence to avoid schematic or include a schematic diagram of processes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am quite satisfied with the corrections that the author made to the paper. Moreover, taking into account the comments of the reviewers (not only mine, but also two other referees), the work was significantly strengthened. In my opinion, the paper can be published as is. And all I can do is wish the author further creative success.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your great efforts to strengthen the paper.

Sincerely,

Leonid F. Chernogor