the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Sep 2021
Accounting for meteorological effects in the detector of the charged component of cosmic rays
Vladimir Makhmutov
Galina Bazilevskaya
Fedor Zagumennov
Vladimir Fomenko
Yuri Stozhkov
Andrey Orlov
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 08 Sep 2021)
- Preprint (discussion started on 30 Apr 2021)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gi-2021-9', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 May 2021
The paper by Philippov et al. presents a study of the impact of meteorological conditions on the CARPET detector count rate and methods of its correction. The paper is novel and important and can be recommended for publication after a moderate revision related to some clarifications. Detailed comments are listed below.
One general comment is that the authors perform consequent corrections (first for pressure, then for temperature/height) but this does not guarantee the optimal solution, because they may correlate with each other. A more robust method can be a multi-regression analysis when both meteorological variables (barometric pressure and temperature/height) are considered simultaneously. The authors may want to comment on that.
The grammar should be checked as the paper contains some small grammatical and linguistic errors.
Other comments:
- Line 14: check coordinates: Moscow is in the northern and eastern hemispheres.
- Line 16: “temperature coefficients” -> “temperature correction coefficients”.
- Line 18: please define what is the “upper air”. Normally, the stratosphere is not considered as the upper atmosphere.
- Line 33-34: should “any of” be replaced by “both”, since it is about coincidence?
- Lines 46 and 48: please check the coordinates, the hemispheres are wrong.
- Line 56: what is meant by the “nuclear-active” particles?
- Line 57-58: the second part of the sentence “therefore, it is necessary” is not logically connected to the first part. Please revise.
- (1). A standard way of barometric correction is via an exponential formula, not linear. The latter is an approximation working only in a narrow range of pressure changes. Please explain that the linear relationship is sufficient.
- Line 70: is CARPET-MOSCOW the same as Dolgoprudny?
- Line 74: why was only one month chosen for the analysis? Was the temperature stable?
- Line 79: How exactly were the NM data used?
- Line 83: Fig.3 contains no “upper horizontal time series” whatever it could be.
- Line 88: what is \beta_{\sigma p}? Is it the same as \beta in line75?
- Line 95-98: the positive and negative effects need to be explained in more detail as a reader may not be familiar with that.
- 3: the \Delta H-effect is also usually modeled by an exponential relationship.
- Line 156: what is the “temperature coefficient density”? The density of what?
- 4: panels d and e, representing different correction methods, are significantly different from each other, suggesting that the correction methods do not agree. The authors should comment on that and propose a preferred method.
- Table 1: what is the last column (n)?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2021-9-RC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Fedor Zagumennov, 27 May 2021
Reply from one of co-authors Fedor Zagumennov (FSBI CAO)
On p.3 :
Since in our organization is a term called "aerology", which is missing in common scientific literature, we replace it with a well known name "upper-air sounding", which is the same. More information about aerological(upper-air) soundings is here:
https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=7417 - from World Meteorological Organization
https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-modeling-surface-and-upper-air-databases
Best regards,
Fedor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2021-9-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Maxim V. Philippov, 02 Jul 2021
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions! We are sure that these comments will improve the quality of the paper and allow us to optimize our work.
Response to Anonymous Referee #1
Reviewer #1:- One general comment is that the authors perform consequent corrections (first for pressure, then for temperature/height) but this does not guarantee the optimal solution, because they may correlate with each other. A more robust method can be a multi-regression analysis when both meteorological variables (barometric pressure and temperature/height) are considered simultaneously. The authors may want to comment on that.
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We didn’t try multi-regression analysis yet. It will be the subject for the next publications. For the current purposes independent correlation coefficients R^2 0,81 (pressure) and 0,89 (temperature) are enough.
2.
- Line 14: check coordinates: Moscow is in the northern and eastern hemispheres.
- Line 16: “temperature coefficients” -> “temperature correction coefficients”.
- Line 18: please define what is the “upper air”. Normally, the stratosphere is not considered as the upper atmosphere.
- Line 33-34: should “any of” be replaced by “both”, since it is about coincidence?
- Lines 46 and 48: please check the coordinates, the hemispheres are wrong.
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We took into account your comments in the text
- Line 56: what is meant by the “nuclear-active” particles?
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We checked. This term is correct in English-speaking literature. For example:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0305-4470/7/6/010/pdf
We added comments in the text: «(protons, neutrons and also charged pions и kaons)»
- Line 57-58: the second part of the sentence “therefore, it is necessary” is not logically connected to the first part. Please revise.
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected this sentence:
“Muons are not nuclear-active particles (protons, neutrons and also π- и K-mesons) and lose energy for the excitation and ionization of air atoms; therefore, it is necessary to consider the atmospheric influence and take into account meteorological effects: pressure and temperature variations (Dorman, 1972, 2004, 2006).”
- (1). A standard way of barometric correction is via an exponential formula, not linear. The latter is an approximation working only in a narrow range of pressure changes. Please explain that the linear relationship is sufficient.
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. You are absolutely right. This linear fit is a standard technique for determining the barometric coefficient of ground installations. Its correctness (linear) is shown in Fig. 2. Coefficient of determination 0.89
- Line 70: is CARPET-MOSCOW the same as Dolgoprudny?
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. Yes. We added in the text additional comment: «(which is installed at the Dolgoprudny Scientific Station of the Lebedev Physical Institute RAS, Moscow region)»
- Line 74: why was only one month chosen for the analysis? Was the temperature stable?
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. This month was chosen as the most stable in terms of variations in primary cosmic rays and temperature.
- Line 79: How exactly were the NM data used?
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected this phrase:
«To estimate that secondary CRs variations, associated with barometric effect are more significant than variations of primary CRs variations, we use pressure corrected data of the Moscow neutron monitor.»
- Line 83: Fig.3 contains no “upper horizontal time series” whatever it could be.
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected this phrase: «Fig. 3 shows neutron monitor count rate variations on the data of 2019. Black horizontal line is average count rate [pulses/min] according to the annual data. Black vertical dashed lines are the boundaries of the months. The names of the month are signed at the bottom. The standard deviation for the data of each month.»
- Line 88: what is \beta_{\sigma p}? Is it the same as \beta in line75?
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. No, it’s multiplication. We’ve correct it in the test: «= 0.018 (1.8%),».
- Line 95-98: the positive and negative effects need to be explained in more detail as a reader may not be familiar with that.
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected this phrase: «The temperature effect has two components: negative and positive. The negative temperature effect is associated with a decrease in muon fluxes during heating and expansion of the atmosphere. The positive temperature effect is associated with the appearance of additional muons, due to a decrease in the density of the atmosphere and, in connection with this, a decrease in the probability of interaction of charged pions and kaons with air nuclei. As a consequence, the probability of decays of charged pions and kaons and the appearance of additional muons increases. These two effects (positive and negative) are competitive»
- 3: the \Delta H-effect is also usually modeled by an exponential relationship.
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. You are absolutely right. This linear fit is a standard technique for determining the temperature coefficient of ground installations. Its correctness (linear) is shown in Fig. 6. Coefficient of determination 0.81
- Line 156: what is the “temperature coefficient density”? The density of what?
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. Corrected. «density of the temperature coefficient»
- 4: panels d and e, representing different correction methods, are significantly different from each other, suggesting that the correction methods do not agree. The authors should comment on that and propose a preferred method.
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We added additional conclusions: «This paper describes the CARPET installation, designed for detecting the charged component of secondary CRs. The barometric coefficient was determined using the built-in pressure sensor. The temperature coefficient was determined by two methods using the data of the upper-air sounding. The integral method for determining the temperature effect is the most accurate, however, due to the lack of regular measurements at high altitudes (since not all sounds reach high altitudes), it can be seen that the data processed by this method are less accurate. In this connection, it is more optimal to use the method of the effective generation level, since it does not require a complete temperature profile. Also, for the CARPET-MOSCOW installation, it is possible to use only the negative component of the temperature effect, since variations of the count rate have good (R2 = 0.8191) correlation with .»
- Table 1: what is the last column (n)?
Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected it in the text: «The results are shown in Table 1: the first column is the atmospheric pressure on the given surface, the second column is the average temperature according to the data for 2019 - 2020, the third column is the standard deviation of the temperature, the fourth column is the temperature coefficient for the given isobaric surface, the fifth column is number of measurements (number of launches at which the sound reached the required altitude).»
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2021-9-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on gi-2021-9', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 May 2021
page 1, lines 14f:
The geographic coordinates of the Dolgoprudny station are not correct. Moscow is not in the South hemisphere and not in the West of the prime meridian (Greenwich). Please check. In addition, the meaning of the parameter "Rc" should be given in the text.page 1, line 16:
"... barometric and temperature coefficients ..." -->
"... barometric and temperature correction coefficients ..."page 1, line 18:
Please give information about what exactly you mean with "upper-air sounding of the atmosphere".page 2, line 36:
I recommend to write "atmospheric pressure" instead of only "pressure".page 2, lines 37ff:
"The CARPET installation detects particles of the following energies: in the UP and the LOW channels there are electrons and positrons with energies E> 200 keV, protons with E> 5 MeV, muons with E> 1.5 MeV, and photons with E> 20 keV (efficiency <1%).": Is "(efficiency <1%)" valid for all particle types or only for photons?page 2, lines 46ff:
Please check the coordinates of the stations in this paragraph and if the effective cutoff rigidity is computed for the correct location. In addition, I would appreciate if you could give the time epoch for which Rc is given.page 2, first paragraph under "2.1 Barometric effect":
I recommend to move the first paragraph starting with "Ground-based CARPET installations detect secondary charged particles, ..." under "2. Instrumentation and data analysis".page 2, line 56:
What do you understand under "nuclear-active particles"?page 2, line 70:
The meaning of $\sigma_N$ and $\sigma_p$ should be given in the text.page 3, lines 74f:
You write that you selected June 2019 for the determination of the barometric coefficient $\beta$ as during this month there were no large geomagnetic and solar disturbances. From Figure 3 I would expect that the months July and August may be even more appropriate. To disentangle the barometric effect from the temperature effect, I would expect that it makes sense to also use the temperature in the atmosphere as a criterion for the selection of the time interval for the determination of the barometric coefficient.page 3, line 80:
I would change: "Average count rate" to "Average pressure corrected count rate".page 3, line 88:
Definition of $\beta \sigma_p$?page 3, "2.2 Temperature effect":
I would appreciate if you could give a short description of the physics behind the temperature effect.page 3, lines 92ff:
I would write here something like:
"The muon component of secondary CRs is characterized by a significant temperature effect (Yanke, et al., 2011). To correct the CR measurements for this effect, it is necessary to carry out temperature measurements in the atmosphere close to the location of the CR instrument."page 5, line 146:
Can you comment on the quality of the fit with $R^2 = 0,0049$.page 5, line 147:
"As seen in Fig. 7, there is a slight positive temperature effect.": Can you give here some quantitative information. From comparing Fig. 4 c) with Fig. 4 d) it is hard to see any differences between the two curves.page 6, line 156:
What is exactly the "temperature coefficient density"? Units of $\alpha$?page 6, formula (7):
According to formula (6), I would expect also a $\Delta x$ in formula (7).page 6, line 171:
This formula has again the number (7) as above before line 165.page 7, "3. Conclusion":
"The results obtained by the effective generation method and the integral method correlate with each other.": What do you mean with "correlate with each other"? From Fig. 4 graphs c) and e), it seems that they show quite large differences. Can you give here some quantitative information? E.g. ratio curve c) vs. curve e). It seems that the curve in Fig. 4 e) shows more pronounced variations than the curve in Fig. 4 c). See e.g. the decrease after day 10. Which of the curves c) or e) of Fig. 4 correspond better to the CR intensity near Earth? E.g. comparison with neutron monitor data which show almost no temperature effect.page 7, "4. Acknowledgments":
In addition to NMDB you should thank the IZMIRAN group (operator of neutron monitor station Moscow). Should you also acknowledge the Federal State Budgetary Institution «Central Aerological Observatory» (CAO)?page 11, Fig. 3:
Does Fig. 3 show "measured count rates" or "pressure corrected measured count rates"?page 12, Fig. 4:
Does Fig. 4 show data for the years 2019/2020? What is shown by the grey curve and what by the black curve?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2021-9-RC2 -
CC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fedor Zagumennov, 27 May 2021
Reply from one of co-authors Fedor Zagumennov (FSBI CAO)
Regarding upper-air soundings :
Since in our organization is a term called "aerology", which is missing in common scientific literature, we replace it with a well known name "upper-air sounding", which is the same. More information about aerological(upper-air) soundings is here:
https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=7417 - from World Meteorological Organization
https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-modeling-surface-and-upper-air-databases
Upper air soundings are done twice(or more often) a day at 12 and 00 GMT, a balloon with a sonde is launched to atmosphere as high as >30 km, data telemetry from sonde is transmitted to ground.
"Upper air sounding" as a scientific term is commonly recognized at WMO, NOAA and others.
Best regards,
Fedor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2021-9-CC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maxim V. Philippov, 02 Jul 2021
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions! We are sure that these comments will improve the quality of the paper and allow us to optimize our work.
Response to Anonymous Referee #2
page 1, lines 14f:
The geographic coordinates of the Dolgoprudny station are not correct. Moscow is not in the South hemisphere and not in the West of the prime meridian (Greenwich). Please check. In addition, the meaning of the parameter "Rc" should be given in the text.Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected it in the text.
page 1, line 16:
"... barometric and temperature coefficients ..." -->
"... barometric and temperature correction coefficients ..."page 1, line 18:
Please give information about what exactly you mean with "upper-air sounding of the atmosphere".page 2, line 36:
I recommend to write "atmospheric pressure" instead of only "pressure".Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected it in the text.
page 2, lines 37ff:
"The CARPET installation detects particles of the following energies: in the UP and the LOW channels there are electrons and positrons with energies E> 200 keV, protons with E> 5 MeV, muons with E> 1.5 MeV, and photons with E> 20 keV (efficiency <1%).": Is "(efficiency <1%)" valid for all particle types or only for photons?Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. Gas-discharge counters have some sensitivity to photons, mainly due to the Compton effect on the shells of the counter.
page 2, lines 46ff:
Please check the coordinates of the stations in this paragraph and if the effective cutoff rigidity is computed for the correct location. In addition, I would appreciate if you could give the time epoch for which Rc is given.Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected it in the text.
page 2, first paragraph under "2.1 Barometric effect":
I recommend to move the first paragraph starting with "Ground-based CARPET installations detect secondary charged particles, ..." under "2. Instrumentation and data analysis".Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected it in the text.
page 2, line 56:
What do you understand under "nuclear-active particles"?Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We checked. This term is correct in English-speaking literature. For example:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0305-4470/7/6/010/pdf
We added comments in the text: «(protons, neutrons and also charged pions и kaons)»
page 2, line 70:
The meaning of $\sigma_N$ and $\sigma_p$ should be given in the text.Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected it in the text:
- «According to the data for 2019, hourly averaged average count rate and atmospheric pressure for the CARPET-MOSCOW installation = 53667 pulses/h, mean square deviation of the count rate = 2187 pulses/h; = 988.7 hPa, mean square deviation of the atmospheric pressure = 9.8 hPa.»
page 3, lines 74f:
You write that you selected June 2019 for the determination of the barometric coefficient $\beta$ as during this month there were no large geomagnetic and solar disturbances. From Figure 3 I would expect that the months July and August may be even more appropriate. To disentangle the barometric effect from the temperature effect, I would expect that it makes sense to also use the temperature in the atmosphere as a criterion for the selection of the time interval for the determination of the barometric coefficient.Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected it in the text:
«For calculating the barometric coefficient , it is necessary to determine the linear relationship between and (Fig. 2). Barometric coefficient b for the CARPET-MOSCOW (which is installed at the Dolgoprudny Scientific Station of the Lebedev Physical Institute RAS, Moscow region) installation is determined on the data of June 2019 (During this period there were no significant geomagnetic, solar and temperature disturbances): b = –0.1861 ± 0.0025%/hPa; coefficient of determination R2 = 0.8975. Using Eq. (1), we obtain pressure-corrected data:»
page 3, line 80:
I would change: "Average count rate" to "Average pressure corrected count rate".Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected it in the text.
page 3, line 88:
Definition of $\beta \sigma_p$?Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. It’s multiplication. We’ve correct it in the test: «= 0.018 (1.8%),».
page 3, "2.2 Temperature effect":
I would appreciate if you could give a short description of the physics behind the temperature effect.Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected this phrase: «The temperature effect has two components: negative and positive. The negative temperature effect is associated with a decrease in muon fluxes during heating and expansion of the atmosphere. The positive temperature effect is associated with the appearance of additional muons, due to a decrease in the density of the atmosphere and, in connection with this, a decrease in the probability of interaction of charged pions and kaons with air nuclei. As a consequence, the probability of decays of charged pions and kaons and the appearance of additional muons increases. These two effects (positive and negative) are competitive»
page 3, lines 92ff:
I would write here something like:
"The muon component of secondary CRs is characterized by a significant temperature effect (Yanke, et al., 2011). To correct the CR measurements for this effect, it is necessary to carry out temperature measurements in the atmosphere close to the location of the CR instrument."Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve corrected this phrase as you offered.
page 5, line 146:
Can you comment on the quality of the fit with $R^2 = 0,0049$.Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion.
The positive temperature effect has the greatest impact on high energy particle detectors. In this case, we have shown that there is practically no positive effect for this low-energy detector.
page 5, line 147:
"As seen in Fig. 7, there is a slight positive temperature effect.": Can you give here some quantitative information. From comparing Fig. 4 c) with Fig. 4 d) it is hard to see any differences between the two curves.Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion.
page 12, Fig. 4:
Does Fig. 4 show data for the years 2019/2020? What is shown by the grey curve and what by the black curve?Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve added to the text:
«Fig. 4. Count rate variations of the CARPET-MOSCOW installation for the period of 2020-2021: a – uncorrected data, b – pressure corrected data, c - pressure and temperature (negative effect) corrected data, d – pressure and temperature (negative and positive effect) corrected data, e – pressure and temperature (integral method) corrected data. Grey lines - initial data, Black lines – data with averaging by 24 points.»
page 11, Fig. 3:
Does Fig. 3 show "measured count rates" or "pressure corrected measured count rates"?Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve added to the text:
«Fig. 3. Pressure corrected count rate variations of the Moscow neutron monitor for the period of 2019. Horizontal line – average count rate.»
page 7, "4. Acknowledgments":
In addition to NMDB you should thank the IZMIRAN group (operator of neutron monitor station Moscow). Should you also acknowledge the Federal State Budgetary Institution «Central Aerological Observatory» (CAO)?Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve added to the text:
«The authors express their gratitude to the Neutron Monitor Database (NMDB) team (www01.nmdb.eu) and IZMIRAN team (https://www.izmiran.ru/) for the data from the ground network of neutron monitors and Federal State Budgetary Institution «Central Aerological Observatory» (CAO) team (http://www.cao-rhms.ru/) for providing the data of upper-air sounding of the atmosphere for 2019-2020.»
page 7, "3. Conclusion":
"The results obtained by the effective generation method and the integral method correlate with each other.": What do you mean with "correlate with each other"? From Fig. 4 graphs c) and e), it seems that they show quite large differences. Can you give here some quantitative information? E.g. ratio curve c) vs. curve e). It seems that the curve in Fig. 4 e) shows more pronounced variations than the curve in Fig. 4 c). See e.g. the decrease after day 10. Which of the curves c) or e) of Fig. 4 correspond better to the CR intensity near Earth? E.g. comparison with neutron monitor data which show almost no temperature effect.page 5, line 147:
"As seen in Fig. 7, there is a slight positive temperature effect.": Can you give here some quantitative information. From comparing Fig. 4 c) with Fig. 4 d) it is hard to see any differences between the two curves.Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We’ve added to the text:
«There is also a correlation between the data of the Moscow neutron monitor (data corrected for the barometric effect) and CARPET-MOSCOW. According to the data for 2019-2020, for the initial CARPET-MOSCOW data: R = 0.34, for the CARPET-MOSCOW data corrected for the barometric effect: R = 0.36, for the CARPET-MOSCOW data corrected for the barometric effect and negative temperature effect: R = 0.38, for the CARPET-MOSCOW data corrected for the negative and the positive temperature effect and barometric effect: R = 0.39, for the CARPET-MOSCOW data corrected for the temperature effect according to the integral method and the barometric effect: R = 0.2.
- Conclusion
This paper describes the CARPET installation, designed for detecting the charged component of secondary CRs. The barometric coefficient was determined using the built-in pressure sensor. The temperature coefficient was determined by two methods using the data of the upper-air sounding. The integral method for determining the temperature effect is the most accurate, however, due to the lack of regular measurements at high altitudes (since not all sounds reach high altitudes), it can be seen that the data processed by this method are less accurate. It also shows less correlation with the data of the Moscow neutron monitor. In this connection, it is more optimal to use the method of the effective generation level, since it does not require a complete temperature profile. Also, for the CARPET-MOSCOW installation, it is possible to use only the negative component of the temperature effect, since variations of the count rate have good (R2 = 0.8191) correlation with .»
page 6, line 156:
What is exactly the "temperature coefficient density"? Units of $\alpha$?Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. Corrected. «density of the temperature coefficient»
page 6, line 171:
This formula has again the number (7) as above before line 165.Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. Corrected.
page 6, formula (7):
According to formula (6), I would expect also a $\Delta x$ in formula (7).Response
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion.
–density of the temperature coefficient [%∙°C-1∙hPa-1], – temperature coefficient for a given isobaric surface [%/°C].
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2021-9-AC2
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC2', Fedor Zagumennov, 27 May 2021
Peer review completion
CARPET. Today there is a network of such installations located in different parts of the world. For ground-based installations, meteorological effects must be considered as they affect the data. This paper shows a technique for eliminating barometric and temperature dependences based on data for 2019–2020.
