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 By 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 |By| changes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lockwood et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: