Interactions between MSTIDs and Ionospheric Irregularities in the Equatorial Region Observed on 13–14 May 2013
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presented manuscript contains results related to interactions between MSTIDs and EIA, and between MSTIDs and EPBs during nighttime conditions on 13-14 May 2013. The results were performed using all-sky imager, digisonde and simulation of the model WACCM-X. The VTEC data are obtained from the two GPS receivers at Sanya and Wuhan stations.
My recommendation to the authors is to review the simulation results section of the WACCM-X model. The comparison of the results obtained from this model does not confirm the obtained Vertical TEC changes - see Figure 4. This figure, as well as Figure 1, contains the main and most significant results obtained by the authors. Discussion Section 4.1. subsection is absolutely redundant in my opinion.
Therefore, I recommend removing it and changing the manuscript type to a technical note.
Author Response
Responses to the comments of Reviewer #1
The presented manuscript contains results related to interactions between MSTIDs and EIA, and between MSTIDs and EPBs during nighttime conditions on 13-14 May 2013. The results were performed using all-sky imager, digisonde and simulation of the model WACCM-X. The VTEC data are obtained from the two GPS receivers at Sanya and Wuhan stations.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your comments and suggestions have helped greatly in improving the manuscript. All comments/suggestions from both you and the other reviewers have been taken into consideration in the revised version.
My recommendation to the authors is to review the simulation results section of the WACCM-X model. The comparison of the results obtained from this model does not confirm the obtained Vertical TEC changes - see Figure 4. This figure, as well as Figure 1, contains the main and most significant results obtained by the authors. Discussion Section 4.1. subsection is absolutely redundant in my opinion. Therefore, I recommend removing it and changing the manuscript type to a technical note.
Reply: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We agree with your suggestion, so we removed section 4.1, as well as the description of the WACCM-X simulation results. Accordingly, we changed the manuscript type to a technical note.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper investigates the interactions between MSTIDs and EIA, and EPBs by using multi-observations and simulations. Several interesting results have been found, which are well explained in the context of previous theories. The paper needs minor revisions.
Line 114: How did you differentiate MSTID from EPS from airglow images?
Figure 4 is very strange. Could you expand the width of the figure?
Line 226: How could you verify your mode wind results? Why did you prefer to use WACCM instead of TIEGCM?
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your comments and suggestions have helped greatly in improving the manuscript. All comments/suggestions from both you and the other reviewers have been taken into consideration in the revised version. Detailed point-by-point responses are in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper present detailed observations on the night between 13 and 14 May 2013, focussing on Medium-scale travelling ionospheric disturbances, equatorial ionization anomalies and equatorial plasma bubbles, and their interactions. In particular, the paper discusses the observations from all sky imager, digisondes and global positioning systems receivers, supported by the simulations from WACCM-X for neutral wind data and Total electron content. The paper is well written and logically organized. Therefore, I suggest publication in remote sensing, once my minor comments here below are addressed.
General comment:
- Given the complexity of the interactions among the various structures suggested in this paper, I suggest the Authors to add a new figure containing one (or more schemes), that illustrates the interaction suggested according to their interpretation. This scheme would facilitate the readers to understand their results.
Minor comments:
- Line 21 – 22, sentence “Results from various … interaction processes”: this sentence doesn’t sound well. Perhaps ‘that’ should be removed ? Please correct it.
- Line 95, Figure 1: It would be important to add the units of measurement illustrated by the colour scale on the right, varying from 0 to 250.
- Lines 96 – 99, caption of Figure1: For completeness, the meaning of the yellow dashed lines should be described in the caption. Moreover, even if it already explained in the text, I suggest for clarity to repeat in the caption the frequency filters adopted to generate these airglow images (630 nm).
- Lines 101 – 102: It is necessary here to explain why the these dark areas in Figure 1 are interpreted as MSTIDs.
- Lines 117 – 118: Same as my previous comment: it is important here to explain why these two black stripes, named b1 and b2 in Figure 1, are interpreted as EPBs
- Line 258: “Es”: I'm not able to find for the acronym ‘Es’ the description. I suggest to add it the first time Es is used in the text.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis paper present detailed observations on the night between 13 and 14 May 2013, focussing on Medium-scale travelling ionospheric disturbances, equatorial ionization anomalies and equatorial plasma bubbles, and their interactions. In particular, the paper discusses the observations from all sky imager, digisondes and global positioning systems receivers, supported by the simulations from WACCM-X for neutral wind data and Total electron content. The paper is well written and logically organized. Therefore, I suggest publication in remote sensing, once my minor comments here below are addressed.
General comment:
- Given the complexity of the interactions among the various structures suggested in this paper, I suggest the Authors to add a new figure containing one (or more schemes), that illustrates the interaction suggested according to their interpretation. This scheme would facilitate the readers to understand their results.
Minor comments:
- Line 21 – 22, sentence “Results from various … interaction processes”: this sentence doesn’t sound well. Perhaps ‘that’ should be removed ? Please correct it.
- Line 95, Figure 1: It would be important to add the units of measurement illustrated by the colour scale on the right, varying from 0 to 250.
- Lines 96 – 99, caption of Figure1: For completeness, the meaning of the yellow dashed lines should be described in the caption. Moreover, even if it already explained in the text, I suggest for clarity to repeat in the caption the frequency filters adopted to generate these airglow images (630 nm).
- Lines 101 – 102: It is necessary here to explain why the these dark areas in Figure 1 are interpreted as MSTIDs.
- Lines 117 – 118: Same as my previous comment: it is important here to explain why these two black stripes, named b1 and b2 in Figure 1, are interpreted as EPBs
- Line 258: “Es”: I'm not able to find for the acronym ‘Es’ the description. I suggest to add it the first time Es is used in the text.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your comments and suggestions have helped greatly in improving the manuscript. All comments/suggestions from both you and the other reviewers have been taken into consideration in the revised version. Detailed point-by-point responses are in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have taken into account all my recommendations. I propose that the manuscript be accepted.
