Authors's response to referee2's review letter

Thanks for referee2's comments. The comments are very helpful for improving
the manuscript. We have revised the first version in accordance with the
comments and suggestions from referees 2 and 1.

Here are referee2's comments started with '>' and authors' responses started
with *** after each comment.
>
>In this work, MDI synoptic charts for 8 years are used to predict the 
>heliospheric magnetic field (HMF) 
>polarity. First, data gaps in polar regions are filled in using the 
>derived latitude-dependence of the 
>zonal polar field. Then the potential field source surface (PFSS) model 
>is employed in order to 
>extrapolate the photospheric magnetic field represented
>by the MDI as well as KPNO and WSO synoptic charts into the corona. The 
>results are compared to the 
>daily HMF polarity observed by WIND and ACE, and the mean success rate 
>of the prediction is quite high 
>(84-86%) for all data sets. Significant work has been done and the 
>results should be published, although a bit more effort must be put to 
make the paper helpful and clear, in particular for a broader audience.
>
>1. Figures are overloaded with sometimes unnecessary details, whereas 
>captions are not always very 
>helpful and self-explanatory, e.g.:
>
> Fig. 2.
>
>All expressions for Br are same (Br is proportional to sin^8(\theta)) 
>and only the coefficients differ. It 
>would be enough to give the coefficients in each panel, while the 
>expression could be moved to the 
>caption.
>
>In my PDF version, 5th panel of the left column is empty.
>
>X- and Y- axes are not marked.
>
> Fig. 4.
>
>Blue and red colors are explained in the caption and there is no need 
>of indicating that again in each 
>panel. 
>
>Same for MDI, KPNO and WSO (or once per column would be enough).
>
>Instead, the success rate could be moved to the top of each panel 
>making plots less overloaded.
>
>3d panel of the left column seems to be empty too (at least, in the PDF 
>file I have).
>
>Although contours +-0.1 are explained in the text, it will be helpful 
>if you describe them in the caption 
>as well.
>
> Fig. 5.
>
>Mark X-axes (top and bottom). Explain dotted lines in caption.
>
> Table 1.
>
>Caption, please!
>
*** 1. Figures 2, 4 and 5 and corresponding captions have been revised in 
accordance with above comments. In addition, red fitting lines
in Figure 2 are replaced with thick fitting lines; the blue and red dots
are replaced with symbols '+' and '-', respectively; 
According to agu latex style, no caption for tables is required.
>
>2. Abstract. "The mean success rate.. the best among the three data 
>sources". Please, specify that the 
>difference is small.
>
*** 2. We specified what referee2 suggested in the revision.
>
>3. Section 2. More details would be helpful, e.g.:
>
>1st paragraph: introduce B0.
>
>Which maps are used to derive the sin^8 dependence: high-resolution as 
>stated in Summary (line 1) or 
>reduced resolution (panels A or B of Fig. 1)?
>
>Last paragraph. Sentence "We obtain Bp using.." - give more details.
>
>Last paragraph. A brief description of KPNO and WSO synoptic charts 
>would be helpful. E.g., in 
>Summary you write that the resolution of the KPNO synoptic charts was 
>also reduced to that of WSO. It 
>is a bit late, I find. Section 2 would be a more suitable place.
>
>How do results depend on the resolution?
>
*** 3. We have revised Section 2 in accordance with above comments. 
We examined quantitatively the effect of the spatial resolution of MDI
synoptic charts on the calculated source surface field, and found that 
for the calculated source surface field at r=2.5 solar radii, the effect
is negligible (see the attached figure. The sympol 'CC' on the top of bottom 
panels denote the correlation coefficient between the bottom panel and the 
second panel in the same coloumn). All the followed calculations
suppot this finding. Therefore, in Figure 1 of the new version, we 
deleted panels D1 and D2, and the associated paragraphs in Sections 3
and 4 are also revised.
>
>4. Section 3. OMNI web site: please, give url
>
*** 4. The URL for OMNI has been added.
>
>5. Summary.
>
>2nd paragraph: optimum N. If you find this important enough to be 
>mentioned in the Summary, please 
>remind the reader what N is and which value of N is used in this work.
>
>3d paragraph: ".. over 12 years"?? June 1996 - June 2004?
>
>3d paragraph: "most of the discrepancies occur in the day or two near 
>the HCS crossing" - One can 
>probably quantify this. You have the total number of days with false 
>predictions. How many of these 
>happen within 2 days around the HCS crossing?
>
*** 5. The "day or two" discrepancy is caused by the uncertainty of the
propagation time from near the Sun to 1 AU. But the shape of the HCS is
another important factor (see, for example, CR1911, 1937 and 1938 in 
Figure 4). 
>
>6. Typos etc.:
>
>p.4 line 2 - "and and"
>
>p.6 last line - Panels.. showS
>
>p. 8 line 5 bottom - Borrini, et al. (skip ,)
>
>Summary line 2 - Sin^8, must be \sin^8
>
> References:
>
>Hoeksema... 1982, Mikic & Linker 1996, and Svalgaard... 1975 are 
>incomplete;
>
>Schatten 1971 (cited on p. 3), Wang & Sheeley 1995 (cited on p. 6), 
>Chapman & Bartels 1962 (cited on 
>p. 7) are missing
>
*** 6. All typos and missing references have been corrected and added.




           
        
--------------------IMPORTANT PUBLICATION 
INFORMATION---------------------       
           
To ensure prompt publication:       
       
1. Follow file format guidelines        
2. Provide a color option        
3. Combine figure parts or provide separate captions        
4. Provide copyright permissions for reprinted figures and tables        
5. Sign and send copyright transfer agreement      
6. A formal estimate will be sent to you a few weeks after acceptance.        
       
For information on all of the above items, see Tools for Authors at       
http://www.agu.org/pubs/inf4aus.html. If you have any questions, reply       
to this e-mail.       
       
A manuscript tracking tool is available for you to to track the status 
of your article after acceptance:       
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/ms_status/ms_status.cgi       
       
Adobe Acrobat Reader is available, free, on the internet at the 
following URL:       
http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html