hopefully solved merge conflict

paper/coverletter.tex

@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ Line 185: This paragraph could be moved later. It seems unnecessary here - just
 \reply{The main reason is the SWICS dying. The data set provided by the SWEPAM team actually combines SWICS and SWEPAM data to mellow the effects of SWEPAM degrading. This also the the data set we used. }
 
 \commentB{Line 204}{ The study mentions multiple times that certain parameters are subject to transport effects, but on the other hand, all the observations are made at 1 AU, so the sampled plasma has suffered similar effects (such as expansion) such that signatures of the solar source may still be evident.}
-\reply{Thank you for pointing that out. We agree that a transport effect like expansion is not playing a role in our data set since it is all measured at 1AU. This is not true for SIRs. Not every plasma stream undergoes a SIR on the way to 1AU. \sophie{TO DO: andere transport effekte} }
+\reply{Thank you for pointing that out. We agree that a transport effect like expansion does not play a role in our data set since it is all measured at 1AU. Since we consider SIRs as a transport effect this argument does not hold here. Not every plasma stream undergoes a SIR on the way to 1AU. So we see the compression regions that a SIR might induce. For wave particle interaction we have the temperature as a proxy for those interactions. Another transport effect visible in our data set is collisions in the plasma. We do not observe a lot wave activity for slow solar wind at 1AU but we see that the plasma has undergone of collisions. For that we actively decided to include the proton-proton collisonal age (also called coulomb number ) as a parameter. The collisonal age has also been used to differntiate between solar wind types so it is not the same for all solar wind parcels.   }
 
 \commentA{What are the averaging times of the data sets used? This is mentioned later, but it would be natural to include this information in the data description.}
 
@@ -168,9 +168,11 @@ Line 185: This paragraph could be moved later. It seems unnecessary here - just
 
 Equation 1: Define the parameters in the equation. It's strange to have units in the denominator. There's a gap in the divisor line.
 
-Line 230: I don't really understand from this brief comment why ICMEs are excluded. In particular, why don't the same arguments (no temporal information and variable properties) apply say to high speed streams, which are also variable from event to event, and, as Figure 3 shows, even with the lack of temporal information, continuous high speed stream intervals can be identified.
+\commentB{Line 230:}{ I don't really understand from this brief comment why ICMEs are excluded. In particular, why don't the same arguments (no temporal information and variable properties) apply say to high speed streams, which are also variable from event to event, and, as Figure 3 shows, even with the lack of temporal information, continuous high speed stream intervals can be identified.}
+\reply{Thank you for the comment. We decided to exclude ICMEs because the main factor on recognizing ICMEs is the magnetic clouds, which cannot be detected with the features that we are currently using. The low temperature could be an indicator but this might not be a strong enough hint for kmeans to actually detect those regions. Furthermore within the ICME there are times where the ICME looks like regular solar find \sophie{TODO quelle hier für finden}. Thus we do not expect to be able to identify this regions as they are not fully understood yet. This is why exclude this from our work. \sophie{TODO Beispeil plot basteln wie das missclassifizieren passieren kann} We see why this can be quiet irritating for the reader so we diceded to emphisize this in our text.  }
 
-Line 234: Are ICME sheath regions also removed? i.e., does the preceding 6 hour buffer extend before the shock (not really necessary as there's no signal of the ICME ahead of the shock, except maybe some waves) or the ICME leading edge (in which case, prior to 6 hours could still include the sheath)?
+\commentB{Line 234:}{ Are ICME sheath regions also removed? i.e., does the preceding 6 hour buffer extend before the shock (not really necessary as there's no signal of the ICME ahead of the shock, except maybe some waves) or the ICME leading edge (in which case, prior to 6 hours could still include the sheath)?}
+\reply{The lists we use are not consistent with removing the sheath regions. So we diceided to try our best by including the six hour window to exclude this from our data set without loosing too much data. We cannot be certain that there is no sheath is always completly removed.  }
 
 Line 239: "To estimate their impact on our results..." - the details of the analysis haven't yet been presented, and some related knowledge is needed to understand many comments in this paragraph. I suggest moving this detailed discussion to later.