Comment on "A new interpretation of Weimer et al.'s solar wind propagation delay technique'' by Bargatze et al.

被引:27
|
作者
Haaland, S.
Paschmann, G.
Sonnerup, B. U. O. .
机构
[1] Max Planck Inst Extraterr Phys, D-85741 Garching, Germany
[2] Univ Bergen, Dept Phys, N-5020 Bergen, Norway
[3] Int Space Sci Inst, Bern, Switzerland
[4] Dartmouth Coll, Thayer Sch Engn, Hanover, NH 03755 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1029/2005JA011376
中图分类号
P1 [天文学];
学科分类号
0704 ;
摘要
[ 1] In a recent article, Bargatze et al. ( 2005) have identified why the implementation of the minimum variance analysis (MVAB) by Weimer et al. ( 2003), even though based on an erroneous variance matrix, has been successful in estimating the orientation of the "phase fronts'' and the resulting propagation delays of the interplanetary magnetic field ( IMF). They recommend further testing of the Weimer analysis as a space weather forecasting tool. In this comment we stress that the Weimer et al. implementation of MVAB closely mimics the results of a well-known version of MVAB that is constrained by the condition that the average field along the phase front normals is zero. This version of MVAB starts from the correct variance matrix, whereas the Weimer analysis is based on an unphysical matrix resulting from a programming error. We recommend that the constrained MVAB, originally developed by Sonnerup and Cahill ( 1968) and later recast into a more convenient form by A. V. Khrabrov be used instead. The Khrabrov method, which we refer to as MVAB-0, has been tested at the Earth's magnetopause by Sonnerup and Scheible ( 1998) and more recently by Haaland et al. ( 2004) and Sonnerup et al. ( 2004).
引用
收藏
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Reply to comment by Haaland et al. on "A new interpretation of Weimer et al.'s solar wind propagation delay technique''
    Bargatze, L. F.
    McPherron, R. L.
    Minamora, J.
    Weimer, D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS, 2006, 111 (A6)
  • [2] A new interpretation of Weimer et al.'s solar wind propagation delay technique
    Bargatze, LF
    McPherron, RL
    Minamora, J
    Weimer, D
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS, 2005, 110 (A7)
  • [3] Comment on Rosell et al., Roth et al. and Gandara et al., Lung Cancer
    Grannis, FW
    [J]. LUNG CANCER, 2000, 28 (03) : 247 - 248
  • [4] Comment on RamaRao et al. [1995] and LaVenue et al. [1995]
    Cooley, RL
    Hill, MC
    [J]. WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 2000, 36 (09) : 2795 - 2797
  • [5] Cryobiopsy Compared with Surgical Lung Biopsy in ILD: Reply to Maldonado et al., Froidure et al., Bendstrup et al., Agarwal et al., Richeldi et al., Rajchgot et al., and Quadrelli et al.
    Romagnoli, Micaela
    Colby, Thomas V.
    Suehs, Carey M.
    Vachier, Isabelle
    Molinari, Nicolas
    Bourdin, Arnaud
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2019, 200 (07) : 944 - 946
  • [6] In response to Murphy et al., Lower et al., and Lan et al.
    Conrad, B
    [J]. CELL, 1998, 95 (01) : 16 - 16
  • [7] Comment on papers by Chong et al., Nishio et al., and Suri et al. on diabetes reversal in NOD mice
    Faustman, Denise L.
    Tran, Simon D.
    Kodama, Shohta
    Lodde, Beatrijs M.
    Szalayova, Ildiko
    Key, Sharon
    Toth, Zsuzsanna E.
    Mezey, Eva
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2006, 314 (5803)
  • [8] Comment on Gopez et al.
    Bedard, YC
    Kandel, R
    [J]. DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY, 2002, 26 (02) : 130 - 130
  • [9] Nesoff et al. Comment
    Nesoff, Elizabeth D.
    Branas, Charles C.
    Martins, Silvia S.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 110 (04) : 507 - 508
  • [10] Comment on Elff et al.
    Stegmueller, Daniel
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2021, 51 (01) : 454 - 459