Characterizing the oceanic ambient noise as recorded by the dense seismo-acoustic Kazakh network

Smirnov, Alexandr; De Carlo, Marine; Le Pichon, Alexis; Shapiro, Nikolai M.; Kulichkov, Sergey

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-503-2021

Articles | Volume 12, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-503-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-503-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 2

Research article

|

25 Feb 2021

Research article |

| 25 Feb 2021

Characterizing the oceanic ambient noise as recorded by the dense seismo-acoustic Kazakh network

Alexandr Smirnov, Marine De Carlo, Alexis Le Pichon, Nikolai M. Shapiro, and Sergey Kulichkov

Download

Final revised paper (published on 25 Feb 2021)
Preprint (discussion started on 03 Mar 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'Presentation at the EGU GA 2020', Alexandr Smirnov, 01 Apr 2020
RC1: 'Referee comment', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 May 2020
- AC1: 'Answer to the referee report', Alexandr Smirnov, 04 Jun 2020
RC2: 'Review by Jelle Assink', Jelle Assink, 02 Jul 2020
- AC2: 'Answer to the referee report', Alexandr Smirnov, 06 Jul 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Alexandr Smirnov on behalf of the Authors (18 Aug 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Sep 2020) by CharLotte Krawczyk

RR by Jelle Assink (02 Oct 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I thank the authors for a careful revision of their manuscript and particularly could note improvements to the presentation of the work, both considering the figures and the English of the paper. I reviewed the manuscript again, but still find that this work could benefit from some corrections before it is accepted for publication.

In particular, some sections of Section 1 need some major rewriting as some parts are incorrect, incomplete or too convoluted. Where possible, I have indicated this in the annotated manuscript, but I encourage the authors to critically assess the flow of the paper themselves. As there are many figures in this paper, the authors should consider if some can be included as a supplemental or if they can be combined into one.

In addition, there are several remaining issues with the presentation and interpretation of the data. The presented variation in amplitude seems problematic for both infrasound and seismic data. This is a major issue because amplitude is an important factor and differences between stations are a major result from this paper. For infrasound, the lower end of the amplitude range is below noise curve, which is not possible. For seismic arrays, there are large differences between the arrays that I suspect to be due to not taking the sensor response into account. This should be trivial to fix but important.

In addition, there remain several major differences predictions and observations that need to be explained. For the seismic arrays, I wonder if some of the differences can be due to slowness-azimuth station corrections not taken into account.

Finally, what I missed in the manuscript was an effort to localise the microbarom and microseism sources based on the array observations alone. Throughout the paper, several references are made to microbarom sources on the southern hemisphere without providing any evidence from this based on the array data.

I suggest another moderate to major revision.

Best regards,
Jelle Assink

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (14 Oct 2020) by CharLotte Krawczyk

AR by Alexandr Smirnov on behalf of the Authors (22 Nov 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (05 Dec 2020) by CharLotte Krawczyk

RR by Jelle Assink (07 Jan 2021)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (07 Jan 2021) by CharLotte Krawczyk

AR by Alexandr Smirnov on behalf of the Authors (12 Jan 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (13 Jan 2021) by CharLotte Krawczyk

ED: Publish as is (13 Jan 2021) by CharLotte Krawczyk (Executive editor)

AR by Alexandr Smirnov on behalf of the Authors (17 Jan 2021) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

Seismic and infrasound methods are techniques used to monitor natural events and explosions. At low frequencies, band signal can be dominated by microbaroms and microseisms. The noise observations in the Kazakh network are performed and compared with source and propagation modeling. The network is dense and well situated for studying very distant source regions of the ambient noise. The prospects are opening for the use of ocean noise in solid Earth and atmosphere tomography.