1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % sample.tex: this sample file is for articles formatted with LaTeX2e,
3: % Modifiied June 2004
4: %
5: % This template is set up logically, with commands and instructions
6: % given in the order necessary to produce a final output that will
7: % satisfy AGU requirements.
8: %
9: % PLEASE DO NOT USE YOUR OWN MACROS
10: %
11: % All questions should be e-mailed to author.help@agu.org.
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: %
14: % ARTICLE MODE
15: %
16: % PLEASE USE THE GALLEY OPTION TO SUBMIT YOUR PAPERS
17: % IF YOU HAVE MULTI-LINE EQUATIONS
18: % The galley option produces single spaced, single column output
19: %
20: % LaTeX2e (galley):
21: %\documentclass[galley,jgrga]{agu2001}
22: % LaTeX2e (draft):
23: \documentclass[draft,jgrga]{agu2001}
24: %
25: % LaTeX2.09 (galley):
26: %\documentstyle[galley,jgrga]{agu2001}
27: % LaTeX2.09 (draft):
28: %\documentstyle[draft,sw]{agu2001}
29: %
30: % Journal Options
31: % jgrga Journal of Geophysical Research
32: % gbc Global Biogeochemical Cycles
33: % grl Geophysical Research Letters
34: % pal Paleoceanography
35: % ras Radio Science
36: % rog Reviews of Geophysics
37: % tec Tectonics
38: % wrr Water Resources Research
39: % sw Space Weather
40: %
41: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
42: %
43: % IMAGE DISPLAY
44: %
45: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
46: %
47: % Uncomment the following line if you need to include images
48: \usepackage{graphicx}
49: %
50: % PLEASE NOTE: WHEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR LATEX FILE TO GEMS, COMMENT OUT ANY COMMANDS
51: % THAT INCLUDE GRAPHICS.
52: % (See FIGURES section near the end of the file)
53:
54: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
55: %
56: % ENTER PREAMBLE
57: %
58: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
59:
60: \authorrunninghead{YERMOLAEV ET AL.}
61: % Author names in capital letters,
62:
63: \titlerunninghead{COMMENT}
64: % Shorter version of title entered in capital letters
65:
66: % Author address will appear at end of article, may repeat
67: % this command for each author.
68: \authoraddr{Yu. I. Yermolaev, M. Yu. Yermolaev, I. G. Lodkina,
69: Space Plasma Physics Department, Space Research Institute,
70: Profsoyuznaya 84/32, Moscow 117997, Russia.
71: (yermol@iki.rssi.ru)}
72: %\authoraddr{M.Yu. Yermolaev
73: %Space Plasma Physics Department, Space Research Institute,
74: %Profsoyuznaya 84/32, Moscow 117997, Russia.}
75:
76:
77: \begin{document}
78:
79: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
80: %
81: % ENABLE IMAGE DISPLAY WHILE USING DRAFT MODE
82: %
83: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
84: %
85: % Uncomment the following code (as well as \usepackage{graphicx} above)
86: % if you need to include images in draft mode
87: %\setkeys{Gin}{draft=false}
88: %
89: % PLEASE NOTE: WHEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR LATEX FILE TO GEMS, COMMENT OUT ANY COMMANDS
90: % THAT INCLUDE GRAPHICS.
91: % (See FIGURES section near the end of the file)
92: %
93:
94: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
95: %
96: % TITLE
97: %
98: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
99:
100:
101: \title{Comment on "A statistical comparison of solar wind sources of moderate
102: and intense geomagnetic storms at solar minimum and maximum" by Zhang, J.-C.,
103: M. W. Liemohn, J. U. Kozyra, M. F. Thomsen, H. A. Elliott, and J. M. Weygand }
104: %
105: % e.g., \title{Terrestrial Ring Current:
106: % Origin, Formation and Decay $\alpha\beta\Gamma\Delta$}
107:
108: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
109: %
110: % AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS - 3 methods
111: %
112: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
113:
114: % Method 1 (for all journals, except Reviews of Geophysics, which
115: % should use method 3):
116: % For three or fewer author/affiliation blocks, use \author{} and \affil{}
117:
118: %\author{R. C. Bales}
119: %\affil{Department of Hydrology and Water Resources,
120: %University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA}
121:
122: \author{Yu. I. Yermolaev, M. Yu. Yermolaev and I. G. Lodkina}
123: \affil{Space Plasma Physics Department, Space Research Institute,
124: Profsoyuznaya 84/32, Moscow 117997, Russia}
125:
126: %\author{E. Mosley-Thompson}
127: %\affil{Department of Geography, Ohio State University,
128: %Columbus, Ohio, USA}
129:
130: %\author{J. R. McConnell}
131: %\affil{Desert Research Institute, Division of Hydrologic Sciences,
132: %Reno, Nevada, USA}
133:
134: % ---------------
135: % Method 2 (for all journals, except Reviews of Geophysics, which
136: % should use method 3):
137: % For more than three author/affiliation blocks,
138: % use \author{\altaffilmark{}} and \altaffiltext{}
139: % \altaffilmark will produce footnote;
140: % matching altaffiltext will appear at bottom of page.
141: % May use \\ to start a new line.
142:
143: % \authors{R. C. Bales, \altaffilmark{1}
144: % E. Mosley-Thompson, \altaffilmark{2}
145: % R. Williams, \altaffilmark{3}
146: % and J. R. McConnell\altaffilmark{4}}
147:
148: % \altaffiltext{1}
149: % {Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona,
150: % Tucson, Arizona, USA.}
151: %
152: % \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Geography, Ohio State University,
153: % Columbus, Ohio, USA.}
154: %
155: % \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Space Sciences, University of Michigan,
156: % Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.}
157: %
158: % \altaffiltext{4}{Desert Research Institute, Division of Hydrologic Sciences,
159: % Reno, Nevada, USA.}
160:
161: %---------------
162: % Method 3 (for Reviews of Geophysics only): Reviewauthors is a table with three
163: % columns. You must supply the ''&'' between each author/affiliation. If you have
164: % more than three authors, start a new table line with /cr
165:
166: % e.g.,
167: % \begin{reviewauthors}
168: % R. C. Bales\\
169: % Department of Hydrology and\\ Water Resources\\
170: % University of Arizona\\
171: % Tucson, Arizona, USA
172: % &
173: % E. Mosley-Thompson\\
174: % Department of Geography\\
175: % Ohio State University\\
176: % Columbus, Ohio, USA
177: % &
178: % J. R. McConnell\\
179: % Desert Research Institute\\
180: % Reno, Nevada, USA
181: % \end{reviewauthors}
182:
183: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
184: %
185: % ABSTRACT
186: %
187: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
188:
189: % Do NOT include any \begin...\end commands within
190: % the body of the abstract.
191:
192: \begin{abstract}
193: (No abstract for Comment)
194: \end{abstract}
195:
196: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
197: %
198: % BEGIN ARTICLE
199: %
200: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
201:
202: % The body of the article must start with a \begin{article} command,
203: % and an \end{article} command must be placed at the end of the file,
204: % before \end{document}.
205: %
206: % If using draft mode \end{article} must follow the references section.
207:
208: \begin{article}
209:
210: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
211: %
212: % TEXT
213: %
214: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
215:
216: %\section{Introduction}
217: %(Article text here)
218:
219: Conditions in the solar wind resulting in magnetic storms on the Earth
220: are a subject of long and intensive investigations. Recently
221: %Zhang et al. (2006)
222: \cite{Zh06}
223: [Zh06 hereafter], published a paper, where they used superposed
224: epoch analyses method to study solar wind features during 549 geomagnetic
225: storms. Unfortunately, the used methodical approach has not allowed to
226: improve essentially understanding of relation of magnetic storms with
227: conditions in the solar wind, and first of all for the following reasons.
228:
229: 1. Authors of Zh06 selected data on 4 different categories:
230: (1) moderate storm at solar minimum, (2) moderate storm at solar maximum,
231: (3) strong storm at solar minimum, and (4) strong storm at solar maximum.
232: In the strict sense, this selection approach has not sufficiently serious
233: physical arguments.
234:
235: On the one side, authors of Zh06 correctly noted that the storms are
236: generated by different types of solar wind: ICME (MC) including Sheath
237: and body of ICME and CIR (see, for instance,
238: \cite{Vieira2004,HuttunenKoskinen2004,Yermolaev2005,YermolaevYermolaev2006}).
239: %[Vieira et al., 2004; Huttunen and Koskinen, 2004; Yermolaev et al, 2005].
240: Used method leads to averaging corresponding parameters of different types
241: of solar wind and, as result of this procedure, the calculated averaged
242: parameters (for instance, density and temperature and parameters using
243: them during calculations) are really not observed in the solar wind
244: during magnetic storms. As have been shown by
245: \cite{YermolaevYermolaev2002}
246: %Yermolaev and Yermolaev [2002]
247: time variations in percentages of CIR-induced and ICME-induced storms
248: have 2 maximuma (minimuma) per solar cycle and change with opposite
249: phases. It means that result of averaging strongly depends, first of all,
250: on real proportion between different types of solar wind included in
251: selected time intervals, rather than on phase of solar cycle.
252:
253: On the other hand, there is no experimental argument in favor of
254: hypothesis that physics for moderate and strong storms may be different.
255: Because strong storms are induced more often by ICMEs than CIRs, used
256: selection of strong (moderate) storms results only in increasing
257: (decreasing) portion of ICMEs in averaging database of solar wind.
258: In this case result of averaging strongly depends on real proportion
259: between different types of solar wind rather than level of Dst index
260: using for storm selection.
261:
262: 2. Authors of Zh06 took minimum Dst time as zero time for superposed
263: epoch method. Because the main phase of storms may last from 2 up to
264: 15 hours (see, for instance,
265: \cite{GonzalezEcher2005,Yermolaev2005,Yermolaevetal2006})
266: %Gonzalez, W. D., and E. Echer, 2005; Yermolaev et al, 2006)
267: the shape of averaged Dst profile of storms significantly differ from
268: shape of really observed storms and instead of onset (instant of storm
269: start) has long (several hours) interval where parameters before and
270: after onset have been averaged. In the strick sense, in contrast to
271: usage of onset time as zero time (see for example
272: \cite{LyatskyTan2003}
273: %Lyatsky, W., and A. Tan, 2003)
274: used method does not allow to select solar wind conditions before and
275: after storm onset and to identify solar wind sources of storms.
276:
277: To illustrate mentioned above, Figs.1 and 2 present results of
278: processing of OMNI data for 623 magnetic storms with Dst $<$ -60 nT
279: during 1976-2000
280: (\cite{YermolaevYermolaev2002,Yermolaevetal2006}):
281: %Yermolaev and Yermolaev, 2002; Yermolaev et al, 2006)
282: %and show
283: time profile of averaged Bz (top panels), Dst and corrected Dst*
284: parameters obtained by superposed epoch method with Dst storm onset
285: and Dst minimum as zero times, respectively. Fig.1. shows that the
286: main phase of averaged storm lasts about 8 hours and time difference
287: between minimum Bz and minimum Dst is about 6 hours while in Fig.2
288: (for the same zero time as in Zh06) there is no clearly defined main
289: phase of the averaged storm and the time difference between minima
290: Bz and Dst is only 1-2 hours,
291: although in both cases the decrease in Dst index began in 1-2 hours
292: after return of Bz component. The similar discrepancies are observed
293: for several another time differences obtained with different zero times
294: (see Figs. 3 and 4).
295:
296: Differences in time profiles of solar wind and IMF parameters for CIR
297: (121 storms), Sheath (22) and MC (113) are shown in Figs.3 and 4.
298: We designated as "Unknown" also 367 storms for which there were not
299: full set of measurements or the type could not be defined unambiguously.
300: Figs. 3 and 4 use onset time and minimum Dst time as zero time,
301: respectively, and show the same parameters: (Left column) N - density,
302: V - velocity, Pdyn - dynamic pressure, T - proton temperature, T/Texp -
303: ratio of measured proton temperature to calculated temperature using
304: velocity, Dst index, (Right) $\beta$ - ratio of thermal to magnetic
305: pressure, B, Bx, By and Bz - magnitude and GSM components of IMF and
306: Kp index. Curves for different types of solar wind are presented by
307: different color. The variability of data for all parameters and for
308: all types of solar wind is sufficiently large, and therefore the
309: table represents average values of their dispersion in the most
310: disturbed and interesting part: from -12 till +12 hours relative
311: to onset. In several cases the distinctions between curves are
312: less than corresponding dispersions, and in this case it is necessary
313: to consider these distinctions as a tendency rather than a proved fact.
314:
315: Because of place limit in the short comment we should discuss briefly
316: the additional information arising owing to selection of data on solar
317: wind types, and also advantages of choice of zero time. First of all
318: one can see that the strongest storms were generated by sheaths but
319: not by bodies of magnetic clouds. There are significant differences
320: in T/Texp and $\beta$, for CIR and Sheath, on one hand, and MC, on the
321: other hand. The highest value near onset is reached for density in
322: CIR and for Pdyn in Sheath. Detailed discussion and comparison of
323: data in Fig.3 may be found in paper by Yermolaev et al., 2006. On the
324: other side, comparison of Figs. 3 and 4 shows several advantages of
325: choice of onset time as zero time. For example, Fig. 3 demonstrates
326: that maximuma of density N and magnitude of magnetic field B for
327: "Unknown" type and CIR are observed at storm onset and Fig.4 does not
328: allow to make these conclusions.
329:
330:
331:
332:
333: %_____________________________________________________________
334: % Simple A&A Table
335: %_____________________________________________________________
336: %
337: \begin{table}
338: %\begin{landscapetable}
339: \caption{Anerage dispersions of solar wind and IMF parameters} % title of Table
340: \label{table:1} % is used to refer this table in the text
341: \centering % used for centering table
342: %{\small
343: \begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l l l l} % centered columns (7 columns)
344: \hline %\hline % inserts double horizontal lines
345: &&&&&&&&&& \\
346: SW & B & Bx & By & Bz & Tp & N & V & Kp & Dst & $\beta$ & T/Tex & NkT & $Nv^2$ \\
347: type& nT&nT&nT & nT & kK &cm$^{-3}$& km/s && nT & & &nPa & nPa \\
348: \hline
349: Unknown & 3.6& 5.2& 6.0& 4.6& 150& 8.1& 111& 13.1& 29& 0.57& 1.23& 0.033& 3.2\\
350: CIR & 4.7& 6.7& 7.4& 6.2& 213&12.5& 102& 14.3& 32& 0.73& 1,51& 0.045& 4.2\\
351: Sheath & 5.6& 5.2& 9.0& 7.1& 133&11.8& 88& 13.5& 36& 0.61& 1.00& 0.036& 7.7\\
352: MC & 6.6& 7.1&11.0& 8.0& 138& 9.7& 128& 13.9& 37& 0.28& 0.87& 0.029& 5.5\\
353: \hline
354: \end{tabular}
355: %}
356: \end{table}
357: %\end{landscapetable}
358: %
359:
360:
361: \begin{acknowledgements}
362: The authors are grateful to all databases for data used in the analysis.
363: Work was in part supported by RFBR, grant 04-02-16131, Program of Phys.
364: Dep. of RAS N 16.
365: \end{acknowledgements}
366:
367: \begin{thebibliography}{}
368:
369:
370: % \bibitem[1966]{baker} Baker, N. 1966,
371: % in Stellar Evolution,
372: % ed.\ R. F. Stein,\& A. G. W. Cameron
373: % (Plenum, New York) 333
374:
375: % \bibitem[1988]{balluch} Balluch, M. 1988,
376: % A\&A, 200, 58
377: %
378: % \bibitem[1980]{cox} Cox, J. P. 1980,
379: % Theory of Stellar Pulsation
380: % (Princeton University Press, Princeton) 165
381:
382: % \bibitem[1969]{cox69} Cox, A. N.,\& Stewart, J. N. 1969,
383: % Academia Nauk, Scientific Information 15, 1
384:
385: % \bibitem[1980]{mizuno} Mizuno H. 1980,
386: % Prog. Theor. Phys., 64, 544
387:
388: % \bibitem[1987]{tscharnuter} Tscharnuter W. M. 1987,
389: % A\&A, 188, 55
390:
391: % \bibitem[1992]{terlevich} Terlevich, R. 1992, in ASP Conf. Ser. 31,
392: % Relationships between Active Galactic Nuclei and Starburst Galaxies,
393: % ed. A. V. Filippenko, 13
394:
395: % \bibitem[1980a]{yorke80a} Yorke, H. W. 1980a,
396: % A\&A, 86, 286
397:
398: % \bibitem[1997]{zheng} Zheng, W., Davidsen, A. F., Tytler, D. \& Kriss, G. A.
399: % 1997, preprint
400:
401: \bibitem[{\it Gonzalez and Echer,} 2006]{GonzalezEcher2005}
402: \reference Gonzalez, W. D., and E. Echer (2005), A study on the peak Dst
403: and peak negative Bz relationship during intense geomagnetic storms,
404: Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18103, doi:10.1029/2005GL023486.
405:
406: \bibitem[{\it Huttunen and Koskinen} 2004]{HuttunenKoskinen2004}
407: \reference Huttunen, K. E. J., and H. E. J. Koskinen (2004), Importance
408: of post-shock streams and sheath region as drivers of intense
409: magnetospheric storms and high-latitude activity, Ann. Geophys., 22, 1729.
410:
411: \bibitem[{\it Lyatsky and Tan,} 2003]{LyatskyTan2003}
412: \reference Lyatsky, W., and A. Tan, Solar wind disturbances responsible
413: for geomagnetic storms, J. Geophys. Res., 108(A3), 1134,
414: doi:10.1029/2001JA005057, 2003.
415:
416: \bibitem[{\it Vieira et al.,} 2004]{Vieira2004}
417: \reference Vieira, L. E. A.; Gonzalez, W. D.; Echer, E.; Tsurutani,
418: B. T. (2004) Storm-intensity criteria for several classes of the
419: driving interplanetary structures, Solar Physics, Volume 223,
420: Issue 1-2, pp. 245-258
421:
422: \bibitem[{\it Yermolaev and Yermolaev,} 2002]{YermolaevYermolaev2002}
423: \reference Yermolaev, Yu.I., M.Yu. Yermolaev (2002) Statistical
424: Relationships between Solar, Interplanetary, and Geomagnetospheric
425: Disturbances, 1976-2000, Cosmic Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2002, pp. 1-14.
426:
427: \bibitem[{\it Yermolaev and Yermolaev,} 2006]{YermolaevYermolaev2006}
428: \reference Yermolaev, Yu.I., M.Yu. Yermolaev (2006) Statistic study
429: on the geomagnetic storm effectiveness of solar and interplanetary events,
430: Journal Adv.Space Res., doi:10.1016/j.asr.2005.03.130 (in press)
431:
432: \bibitem[{\it Yermolaev et al.,} 2005]{Yermolaev2005}
433: \reference Yermolaev, Yu.I., M.Yu. Yermolaev and N.S. Nikolaeva (2005)
434: Comparison of interplanetary and magnetospheric conditions for
435: CIR-induced and ICME-induced magnetic storms, European Geosciences Union,
436: Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 7, 01064, 2005
437:
438: \bibitem[{\it Yermolaev et al.,} 2006]{Yermolaevetal2006}
439: \reference Yermolaev, Yu.I., M.Yu. Yermolaev, I. G. Lodkina and
440: N.S. Nikolaeva (2006), Statistic study of heliospheric conditions
441: resulting in magnetic storm. Cosmic Reaserch, 2006 (in press)
442:
443: \bibitem[{\it Zhang et al.,} 2006]{Zh06}
444: \reference Zhang, J.-C., M. W. Liemohn, J. U. Kozyra, M. F. Thomsen,
445: H. A. Elliott, and J. M. Weygand, A statistical comparison of solar
446: wind sources of moderate and intense geomagnetic storms at solar
447: minimum and maximum (2006), , J. Geophys. Res., 111, A01104,
448: doi:10.1029/2005JA011065.
449:
450:
451: \end{thebibliography}
452:
453: \end{article}
454:
455: \begin{figure}
456: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig1.eps}
457: \caption{Behavior of Bz IMF (top panel) and Dst (closed symbol) and
458: corrected Dst* (open) indexes for 622 magnetic storms with Dst $<$ -60 nT
459: during 1976-2000 obtained using OMNI dataset by superposed epoch method
460: with zero time chosen as first 1-hour point of abrupt drop of Dst.}
461: \end{figure}
462:
463: \begin{figure}
464: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig2.eps}
465: \caption{The same as in Fig.1 obtained by superposed epoch method with
466: zero time chosen as minimum of Dst (similar to Zh06).}
467: \end{figure}
468:
469: \begin{figure}
470: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig3.eps}
471: \caption{Behavior of plasma and IMF for magnetic storms generated by CIR,
472: Sheath, MC and Unknown types of solar wind during 1976-2000 obtained using
473: OMNI dataset by superposed epoch method with zero time chosen as first
474: 1-hour point of abrupt drop of Dst.}
475: \end{figure}
476:
477: \begin{figure}
478: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig4.eps}
479: \caption{The same as in Fig.3 obtained by superposed epoch method with zero
480: time chosen as minimum of Dst (similar to Zh06).}
481: \end{figure}
482:
483:
484: \end{document}
485:
486: