Reply to 'The dynamics of Van Allen belts revisited'
Reply to 'The dynamics of Van Allen belts revisited'
复制标题
回复“重新审视范艾伦皮带的动态”
DOI：
10.1038/nphys4351
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
19.6
通讯作者：
Mann I
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mann I
曼等人。回复——我们很高兴回应 Shprits 等人对我们论文 1 的评论。 2，因为我们相信它支持我们的结论，即磁层顶阴影和超低频（ULF）波向外传输可以将快速损耗驱动到超相对论电子辐射带的中心并产生残余带。据贝克等人报道。 3、2012 年 9 月的地磁风暴产生了这种现象，我们展示了如何解释这种损失。然而，Shprits 等人。声称对于这个单一的特定风暴，电磁离子回旋加速器（EMIC）波损失对于解释观察到的第三带至关重要。我们对这种解释提出异议。与 Shprits 等人的说法相反，向外的 ULF 波径向扩散可以在足够短的时间尺度上起作用，从而产生所观察到的残余带。例如，补充图 1 显示了使用参考文献中描述的相同方法进行的其他磁层顶阴影模拟运行。图 1 显示了外带的侵蚀以及在不引发 EMIC 波效应的情况下生成单调和非单调 PSD 剖面。我们的 ULF 波驱动辐射带模拟不仅再现了第三带形态，而且在较高能量下产生了较窄的残余带，正如观察到的那样（补充图 2）。Shprits 等人中关于 EMIC 波损耗作用的主要论点。对应关系基于电子相空间密度 (PSD) 分布的分析。然而，我们不同意他们的分析和派生的 PSD 配置文件，因为他们似乎没有考虑最低 REPT 仪器能量通道测量的不确定性，
Mann et al. reply—We are pleased to address the comment on our paper1 from Shprits et al. 2 since we believe it supports our conclusion that magnetopause shadowing and ultralow-frequency (ULF) wave outward transport can drive fast losses into the heart of the ultra-relativistic electron radiation belt and produce a remnant belt. As reported by Baker et al. 3, the September 2012 geomagnetic storm produced this phenomena, and we showed1 how such losses could explain it. However, Shprits et al. claim that for this single specific storm that electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) wave losses are essential for explaining the observed third belt. We dispute this interpretation. Contrary to the claims of Shprits et al., outward ULF wave radial diffusion can act on sufficiently short timescales4 to generate the observed remnant belt. For example, Supplementary Fig. 1 displays additional magnetopause shadowing simulation runs using the same approach described in ref. 1 showing an erosion of the outer belt and the generation of both monotonic and non-monotonic PSD profiles without invoking EMIC wave effects. Our ULF wave-driven radiation belt simulations not only reproduce the third belt morphology but also produce a narrower remnant belt at higher energies just as observed (Supplementary Fig. 2).The principal argument for the action of EMIC wave loss in the Shprits et al. Correspondence is based on analysis of electron phase space density (PSD) profiles. However, we disagree with their analysis and the derived PSD profiles since they do not appear to take into account uncertainties in measurements at the lowest REPT instrument energy channels,