the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The 2021 volcanic eruption in La Palma Island and its impact on ionospheric scintillation as measured from GNSS reference stations, GNSS-R, and GNSS-RO
Abstract. Ionospheric disturbances induced by seismic activity have been studied in the last years by many authors, showing an impact both before and after the occurrence of earthquakes. In this study, the ionospheric scintillation produced by the 2021 La Palma volcano eruption is analyzed. The "Cumbre Vieja" volcano was active from September 19th to December 13th, 2021, and many magnitude 3–4 earthquakes were recorded, with some of them reaching magnitude 5. In this study the three methods: GNSS reference monitoring, GNSS Reflectometry (GNSS-R) from NASA CYGNSS, and GNSS Radio Occultation (GNSS-RO) from COSMIC and Spire constellations, are used, allowing us to compare and evaluate their performance in the same conditions. To compare the seismic activity with ionospheric scintillation, earthquakes’ generated energy, and percentile 95 % of the intensity scintillation parameter (S4), measurements have been computed every 6 h intervals for the whole duration of the volcanic eruption. GNSS-RO has shown the best correlation between earthquakes’ energy and S4, with values up to 0.09 when the perturbations occur around 18 h after the seismic activity. GNSS reference monitoring stations data also shows some correlation 18 h after and 7–8 days after. As expected, GNSS-R is the one that shows the smallest correlation, as the ionospheric signatures get masked by the signature of the surface where the reflection is taking place. Additionally, as expected as well, the three methods show a smaller correlation during the week before earthquakes.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(7668 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(7668 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1089', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Jan 2023
The paper contains a lot of valuable and high-quality science, which is suitable for publication. I enjoyed reading the material and found the subject matter very interesting. The paper, however, currently contains grammar errors, lacks proper citations, and several figures/captions are missing information. There is currently no mention or analysis of the reliability of the results- (no statistical significance or error analysis associated with the final results). Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript is revised before acceptance. I have made several additional notes as examples of some of the suggested edits in the attached PDF document. Overall, great paper.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carlos Molina, 20 Mar 2023
We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and corrections. We have applied the recommendations and updated the required information attached in the PDF. In addition, the revised paper will provide a better analysis of the consistency of the results, in particular, an analysis of the correlation with respect to the solar and geomagnetic activity: planetary index Kp, and solar flux F10.7.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1089-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carlos Molina, 20 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1089', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Feb 2023
The manuscript studies three methods for detecting seismic ionospheric disturbances and obtains some results. However, the manuscript lacks highlights, and the results and related discussions are not good.
1. There are few explanations related to S4. How to use GNSS or GNSS-RO to obtain S4? What is the specific response relationship between S4 and earthquake? None of the above issues were explained clearly.
2. The S4 results obtained by GNSS-RO have obvious anomalies before and after the earthquake. Are these anomalies caused by the earthquake or other reasons? Geomagnetic activity? Solar activity? In addition, do the results obtained by the other two methods also consider the causes of geomagnetic activity and solar activity? Relevant data are not analyzed in this paper.
3. What is the correlation coefficient R between the two variables? The correlation coefficient R is less than 0.1.The correlation is too weak and has no practical significance.
4. There is too little analysis of the results obtained by each method. It seems that it only describes the results without analyzing the physical mechanism behind them.
For the above reasons, I propose to reject this manuscript.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1089-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Carlos Molina, 21 Mar 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1089', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Jan 2023
The paper contains a lot of valuable and high-quality science, which is suitable for publication. I enjoyed reading the material and found the subject matter very interesting. The paper, however, currently contains grammar errors, lacks proper citations, and several figures/captions are missing information. There is currently no mention or analysis of the reliability of the results- (no statistical significance or error analysis associated with the final results). Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript is revised before acceptance. I have made several additional notes as examples of some of the suggested edits in the attached PDF document. Overall, great paper.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carlos Molina, 20 Mar 2023
We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and corrections. We have applied the recommendations and updated the required information attached in the PDF. In addition, the revised paper will provide a better analysis of the consistency of the results, in particular, an analysis of the correlation with respect to the solar and geomagnetic activity: planetary index Kp, and solar flux F10.7.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1089-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carlos Molina, 20 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1089', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Feb 2023
The manuscript studies three methods for detecting seismic ionospheric disturbances and obtains some results. However, the manuscript lacks highlights, and the results and related discussions are not good.
1. There are few explanations related to S4. How to use GNSS or GNSS-RO to obtain S4? What is the specific response relationship between S4 and earthquake? None of the above issues were explained clearly.
2. The S4 results obtained by GNSS-RO have obvious anomalies before and after the earthquake. Are these anomalies caused by the earthquake or other reasons? Geomagnetic activity? Solar activity? In addition, do the results obtained by the other two methods also consider the causes of geomagnetic activity and solar activity? Relevant data are not analyzed in this paper.
3. What is the correlation coefficient R between the two variables? The correlation coefficient R is less than 0.1.The correlation is too weak and has no practical significance.
4. There is too little analysis of the results obtained by each method. It seems that it only describes the results without analyzing the physical mechanism behind them.
For the above reasons, I propose to reject this manuscript.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1089-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Carlos Molina, 21 Mar 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
373 | 196 | 25 | 594 | 10 | 11 |
- HTML: 373
- PDF: 196
- XML: 25
- Total: 594
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Badr-Eddine Boudriki Semlali
Hyuk Park
Adriano Camps
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(7668 KB) - Metadata XML