Dear Dr. Pu, Thank you for your letter. Sorry for delay of my reply: I ...

Dear Dr. Pu,
Thank you for your letter.
Sorry for delay of my reply: I was at scientific conference and could to write you letter.
I could not understand from your letter whether I can write the replies to last reviewers’
comments at the given stage.
Therefore I now shall briefly state my opinion under all comments of 3 reviewers.
The basis of my manuscript is following:
Method used by Gopalswamy et al. does not allow one to select “backside CMEs” and “frontside
CMEs without disc activity” but Gopalswamy et al. excluded all “frontside CMEs without disc
activity” from list of frontside CMEs and included them in list of “backside CMEs”. This is the
obvious fact. All conclusions of the manuscript are logic consequences of this fact.
Reviewer #1 agreed with the fact and discussed the conclusions taking into account of the fact.
Reviewer #2 does not want to see and to discuss the fact and he/she discusses only conclusions
without source of these conclusions.
Reviewer #3 initially discusses conclusions without consideration of the fact and then writes that
he/she agrees with the fact (“The only problem with Gopalswamy et al.’s paper, to my opinion,
is that the authors failed to correctly classify those halo CMEs without disc activities, and didn’t
point out that some of they defined ‘backside” CMEs might also originate from the front-side
disk”). However he/she writes that paper is not pleasant to him/her, ignoring the fact.
Thus, two from three reviewers have agreed with the fact (i.e. with the basic maintenance of the
manuscript) and one of them has refrained from an estimation of this fact. Why do you conclude
that the manuscript cannot be published in JGR?
It will be a pity to me, if I should publish the comments in other journal, and the methodical
problems published in JGR, will be discussed in this journal but not in JGR.
Sincerely yours,
Yuri Yermolaev
---------------------------------------------
Manuscript Number: 2008JA013040RR Manuscript Title: Comment on "Geoeffectiveness of
halo coronal mass ejections" by Gopalswamy, N., S. Yashiro, and S. Akiyama"
Dear Dr. Yermolaev:
I regret to inform you that the above manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in Journal of
Geophysical Research - Space Physics. Below are 2 reviews. Based on these comments and my
own examination of the paper, I have determined that it cannot be made to meet the requirements
for publication in Journal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics in anything like its present
form.

Sincerely,
Zuyin Pu
Journal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics
************************** Reviewer Comments **************************
Reviewer #2 (Comments):
Reviewer #2's third review report to "Yermolaev's second response to Reviewer #2's second
review report"
Different from author's first response, in his second response the author complains that "the
purpose of my paper is to show the
incorrectness of Gopalswamy et al.' method of data processing", and "the reviewer does not wish
to discuss the essence of my manuscript and discusses the minor problems ...". The following is
Reviewer #2's comments.
1. What is the purpose and essence of the COMMENT paper? and
Why Reviewer #2 discusses method and geoeffectiveness of other papers as well as the comment
paper?
Gopalswamy et al. [2007] obtained a significantly higher
geoeffectiveness rates of frontside halo CMEs than previous studies (say, Kim et al. [2005]),
and attributed the conflicting results to the different definition of 'halo' CMEs. The author of the
comment paper attributed the high geoeffectiveness to the "incorrect" classification of the
'frontside' and 'backside' halo CMEs, and concluded that the high geoeffectiveness obtained by
Gopalswamy et al. was "incorrect".
Obviously, the purpose or essence of the COMMENT paper is to
"present our point of view on high geoeffectiveness of CMEs obtained in the paper by
Gopalswamy et al" (see the first paragraph of the comment paper), i.e., to
SHOW that Gopalswamy et al.' high geoeffectiveness rate is "incorrect".
The "selection method of frontside halo CMEs" is only one of
arguments proposed in the debate.
By discussing the selection method alone, as the author suggested, is obviously impossible for
Reviewers to decide
which point of views about the cause of the high geoeffectiveness, the author's or Gopalswamy
et al', is acceptable, and to determine whether or not the high geoeffectiveness is incorrect.
The scientific way to find out the answer is to examine
and compare not only selection methods of "frontside"
halo CMEs but also "different definitions of halo CMEs" used in
Gopalwamy et al.' and Kim et al.' papers. It is also necessary to see the effects of the different
definitions and the
selection methods on the geoeffectiveness rate.
That is just what Reviewer #2 did, and Reviewer #1 and Gopalswamy et al. did the similar way
(see Reviewer #1's second report and Gopalswamy et al.' response). It is certainly necessary!

2. What is the CORRECT selection method (or observational definition) of the frontside halo
CME?
As shown in the first or second section of Gopalswamy et al.' and
Kim et al.' papers, the observational definition of frontside halo CMEs used in the former is
basically the same as in the latter, that is the halo CME that is associated with one of nearsurface
activities, such as flare, filament disappearence, dimming, .... or moew briefly, the halo
CME with near-surface
activity. This is the standard definition of frontside CMEs used in liturature.
It is true that there is no any specific kind of associated near-surface activities that has one-toone
correspodence to halo CMEs. However, observations have shown that the percentage of
CMEs that are associated with flares alone is ~50%,
and the percentage increases to ~75% when CMEs are associated with flares
or filament disappearences [Munro et al., 1977]. It is expected that the percentage may be near
100% as the number of associated near-surface activities used further increases. In fact, there
have been studies that suggest that by using this standard definition, the detection rate for
backside and frontside halo CMEs is basically the same (see also Reviewer #1's second review
report). This fact proves the correctness of the selection method used in Gopalswamy et al.'
paper, and shows no "obvious logical mistake" at all.
Based on the existence of the "problem storms", the author asserted that there were "frontside
halo CMEs without disk (near-surface) activity", and this kind of "frontside halo CMEs without
disk activity" "have been excluded from the frontside list and included in the backside list".
What are the observational definitions the author used here for the "CME", the "halo CME" and
the "frontside halo CMEs"?
If the definitions are the same as what used in Kim et al.' paper, it is certainly a logic mistake to
talk about "frontside halo CMEs without disk activity" because the frontside halo CME is
defined as "the CME with disk activity".
It is well known that "Problem storms" are observationally defined as the storms without any
kind of solar activities associated, not only near-surface activities, but also CMEs. Why the
author is so sure that "problem storms" must have CMEs associated with? If the "problem
storms" were realy
associated with CMEs, they would not be "problem" storms any more. It is another logic
mistake.
Reviewer #2 don't think the author could make such obvious logic mistakes. Perhaps, the author
INCORRECTLY assumes that "problem CMEs" are defined as the storms with CMEs associated
but without near-surface activity associated.
The existence of "problem storms" means the existence of some kind of new CME that may be
detected by new instrements in the future, but cannot be detected by presently-used instruments.
It may also be expected that there are new near-surface activities that are associated with the new
kind of CME because the CME is not an isolated phenomenon, it is one of manifestations of the
reconfiguration of the solar atmosphere. There is htus no reason to rule out the possible existence
of the new associated near-surface activities that can be used to distinguish frontside from
backside CMEs.
Therefore, the selection method of frontside halo CMEs used in
Gopalswamy et al.' paper is correct because no any observational evidence to support the
coclussion made by the author.

3. Is the high geoeffectiveness "overestimated" or "incorrect"?
As shown in Reviewer #2's first and second reports, it is the different definitions of "halo" CMEs
used by Kim et al. and Gopalswamy et al. that make the significant difference of
geoeffectiveness. In Gopalswamy et al.' paper, "halo" CMEs are defined as the CMEs with
apparent angular width of 360 degrees, i.e., FULL halo CMEs; and in Kim et al., "halo" CMEs
are
defined as the CMEs with apparent angular width greater than 120 degrees, i.e., "FULL +
PARTIAL" halo CMEs.
Because most of frontside PARTIAL halo CMEs could not encounter
the Earth, it is understandable why Gopalswamy et al.' geoeffectiveness is significantly higher
than Kim et al.'. Actually, using the data in Gopalswamy et al' paper, the low geoeffectiveness
can also be obtained if using the same definition of halo CMEs as used by Kim et al., as shown
in Reviewer #2's first report.
In summary, both the selection method of frontside halo CMEs
and the high geoeffectiveness in Gopalswamy et al.' paper is reasonable, and acceptable. The
arguments and conclusions in the comment paper are incorrect.
Reviewer #3 (Comments):
The comment on Gopalswamy et al.'s higher rate of geoeffective
front-side full-halo CMEs made by Yermolaev, to my opinion, is
not valid. In Yermolaev's comment, he/she criticizes that
Gopalswamy et al. use harder/illogical criteria to filter
front-side CMEs, which leads those front-side CMEs without
disk activities missed and therefor yields false high rate.
The critic doesn't realize that the high rate is due to the
stricter selection of halo CMEs, not the stricter selection
of front-side CMEs. In different studies, different
definitions of halo CMEs are used. For example, halo CMEs
actually mean those CMEs with angular with larger than 140,
130, or 120 degrees in many studies, such as by Kim et al.
(2005), Wang et al. (2002), Webb et al. (2000), and St. Cyr et al.
(2000). Different definitions will cause different preselected
sample. In Gopalswamy et al.'s paper, only FULL halo CMEs are
considered, that results in 378 events (note this number is for
all halo CMEs no matter where did they come from) from 1996 to
2005. We can make a comparison of this number with the number, 883,
from Kim et al.'s paper. It's obvious that the number by
Gopalswamy et al. is 42.8% of that by Kim et al. even though
the statistical period in Gopalswamy et al.'s paper is more
than two-year longer than that in Kim et al.'s paper. It's
generally accepted that the wider the CME angular width is,
the higher probable is the CME to encounter the Earth and cause
geoeffectiveness. It is because a wider angular width means
that either the location of a CME is closer to the center of
solar disk, where the CME right faces to the Earth, or the

actual angular size is larger. I notice that based on Kim et al.'s
paper, the rate of geoeffective CMEs increases to > 80% if
only the CMEs with location 400 km/s
are considered. Thus, it could be expected that the rate should
be higher as the selection threshold of halo CMEs increases.
The stricter selection threshold of halo CMEs is already
clearly claimed in the Introduction and Discussion of
Gopalswamy et al.'s paper. I don't think readers will be
misled. This is my first reason why I said that Yermolaev's
comment is invalid.
Yermolaev criticizes that the front-side halo CME list by
Gopalswamy et al. is not complete, because those
non-disk-activity associated halo CMEs might also originate
from the front side of the solar disk. However, I think
the critic also has no clue which non-disk-activity associated
halo CMEs do come from front-side disk. Excluding all
undeterminable events from the final sample is a common
treatment applied in almost all studies in this area. I am
hard to understand why only the study by Gopalswamy et al.
catches the critic's doubt. As to those 'problem events', I
have to say that there is no definite explanation on those
events. An unsolved phenomenon can not be used as evidence to
judge that the front-side halo CME list must be incomplete.
No one can confidently claim that those problem events are
caused by the front-side CMEs without any disk activities.
There is indeed another explanation with some indirect
evidence that some backside CMEs can affect the Earth (Webb
et al., JGR, 2000; Zhang et al., ApJ, 2003; Wang et al., Sol
Phys, 2004). That's my second reason.
Third, I would argue with Yermolaev that if the CME list is
not complete, how large the percentage of the front-side CMEs
should be. The present CME list suggests that about 61% halo
CMEs come from front-side disk, which is reasonable in
statistics (ideally the percentage is 50%). The only problem
with the Gopalswamy et al.'s
paper, to my opinion, is that the authors failed to correctly
classify those halo CMEs without disk activities, and didn't
point out that some of they defined "backside" CMEs might also
originate from the front-side disk. But those unknown false
backside CMEs should occupy a really small fraction, and will
not significantly impact the results by Gopalswamy et al. The
focus of Gopalswamy et al.'s paper is on those definite
front-side full-halo CMEs. So I don't think that Gopalswamy et
al. made a big mistake in their study. Overall, I think that the
comment by Yermolaev is not worthy to be published.