Monitoring of Geomagnetic and Telluric Field Disturbances in the Russian Arctic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript from Olga Kozyreva, Vyacheslav Pilipenko and co-authors with title “Monitoring of geomagnetic and telluric field disturbances in the Russian Arctic” is using database of Arctic geomagnetic measurements to determine geomagnetic hazard on infrastructure in polar regions. Based on my narrowly focussed scientific expertise, which only partly covers topics in the study, I think the manuscript is well written and I have comments and question about using non-harmonic pulsation in methodology, which are briefly stated in following text.

The abstract is bit too descriptive and general. I’m missing more specific details about new results stated further in the text, for example about nominal values or specific regions with higher risk of hazard.

In paragraph from line 211, there is the workflow how to calculate geoelectric component with externally obtained MT impedance transfer function and idea is fine. However, I have question, how MT could be used on magnetic waves, which are clearly not planar, i.e. there is vertical component for excitation field. Planar wave assumption is required condition for MT method and validity of (1). In some condition, the difference can be quite small. But in the text should be at least stated that its just approximation and differences from application of normal MT, where we have to avoid effects due to proximity to the polar electrojet. Also MT should work with harmonic field, where Pi3 are non-harmonic. Would not be better description through some transient electromagnetic formula?

Also figure 8 is somehow misleading. Electric field should depend only on conductive environment and excitation magnetic field and his frequency. DB/dt should not play role for harmonic field. Only if you are mixing harmonic and non harmonic field again then may be there is some role for derivation. You should explain this more clearly what is meaning convolution and what kind of induction processes in GIC generation are combined. What is the meaning of LILF in figure 8?

Small comments:

Line 100: Missing description of acronym GC.

Line 105: Better use magnetovariational observation

Line 116: 1 min cadence -> 1 min sampling period

Fig. 5 right: The units for magnetotelluric impedance should be Ohm.m and not Ohm. Or is it some other type of impedance?

Fig. 6: Wrong order of field graph labels in figure caption.

Author Response

please see attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments are presented directly in the source text (applsci-1625004-peer-review-v1_Comments_20220311.pdf file). They are mostly technical in nature. But especially important is the mistakes of cite to references.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper focussed on actual problem of space weather and it's impact to the man made infrastructure in Arctic region like optimization of the cathodic protection of pipelines. Authors preset new freely available database of geomagnetic field monitoring in Russian Arctic. 

Article fitts the journal's scope and can be accepted "as is".

Author Response

Thank you for high estimate

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good strong paper on the actual topic. Nothing to add here.

Reviewer 2 Report

Figure 1 should have the same geographic base and scale as figures 9,10 and 11.

You should present at least one or two references to the work of Prof Robert McPherrron.  Richard Coles has published on the large grid failures in Canada.

I had to ask for figure 8 to be reformatted to a page size figure.

I made some minor changes in the text on lines on pages:12;85; 108; 109;116; 129; 135; 383, reference 16;

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents the monitoring of geomagnetic and telluric field disturbances in the Russian Arctic. However, there is a lack of evidence in terms of data measurement since the input data were obtained from an ambiguous instrument on the website. Also, some missing information on the equipment used as part of the methodology conducted in this research. Data are not critically discussed using the demonstrated figures, thus missing the objective of this publication.

1. Formatting issue: Figures captions are confusing with all the figures themselves. Need to rewrite and place all those figures in the text. Otherwise all just confusing.
2. The results published in Table 1 were obtained from a specific calculator from a website. How the results are validated since it will affect the whole monitored data?
3. Map data are not comprehensively discussed.