Premium
Comment on “ B y fluctuations in the magnetosheath and azimuthal flow velocity transients in the dayside ionosphere” by Newell and Sibeck
Author(s) -
Lockwood M.,
Cowley S. W. H.,
Smith M. F.
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
geophysical research letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.007
H-Index - 273
eISSN - 1944-8007
pISSN - 0094-8276
DOI - 10.1029/94gl01360
Subject(s) - magnetosheath , physics , azimuth , ionosphere , flow (mathematics) , geophysics , magnetosphere , magnetopause , mechanics , magnetic field , astronomy , quantum mechanics
Newell and Sibeck [1993] (hereafter N&S) list some objections to our interpretation of dayside auroral transients and associated azimuthal flow bursts in terms of pulsed reconnection [e.g. Lockwood et al. , 1989; 1993a]. They present what they term an “apparently overlooked” alternative explanation in terms of steady reconnection and fluctuations in the magnitude of the B y component of the magnetosheath field. The objections of N&S can all be answered by reference to our previous publications and their alternative explanation was only “overlooked” in so far as it fails to explain the observations. Here we discuss just some of the reasons why the objections of N&S are invalid, and then give reasons why the events are not simply due to magnetosheath | B y | changes.