%\subsection{Dependence on $\theta$}
%Small rotation, $Co=0.0015$,the structures do not
%disappear with the increase of $\theta$ unlike the MFS
%case.
%AB: maybe it is better (more exciting) to use the findings in the title

%\subsection{Comparison with \cite{WLBKR2013}}

%Since we are using a lower resolution than \cite{WLBKR2013},
%we will start by comparing that results with a zero rotation run.
%As we see in \Fig{pBBeq_one}, the growth of the different components
%of the magnetic field is almost the same. We do not appreciate now
%AB: what is meant?
%the big difference in growth for the $z-$component that we see in
%Figure 2 of \cite{WLBKR2013}. Moreover, we get a much less
%growth in the averaged field components.

%\begin{figure}[h!]\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{profiles_Om002_theta0}
%\end{center}\caption[]{
%$\Co=0.0015$, $\theta=0$
%}\label{profiles_Om002_theta0}\end{figure}


%\begin{figure}[h!]\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{profiles_Om002_theta30}
%\end{center}\caption[]{
%$Co=0.0015$, $\theta=30$
%}\label{profiles_Om002_theta30}\end{figure}
%\subsection{Faster rotation}


%\begin{figure}[h!]\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{profiles_Om002_theta60}
%\end{center}\caption[]{
%$Co=0.0015$, $\theta=60$
%}\label{profiles_Om002_theta60}\end{figure}

%\begin{figure}[h!]\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{profiles_Om002_theta90}
%\end{center}\caption[]{
%$Co=0.0015$, $\theta=90$
%}\label{profiles_Om002_theta90}\end{figure}


% \begin{figure}[t!]
% \begin{center}
% %\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{Om002_th0_bb3_xy21}
% %\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{Om002_th30_bb3_xy20}
% %\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{Om002_th60_bb3_xy31}
% %\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{Om002_th90_bb3_xy34}
% \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{B002Om002}
% \end{center}\caption[]{
% $B_z/\Beq$ for Runs~B1--B4 with $\Co = 0.0015$.
% }\label{B002Om002}
% \end{figure}


%\begin{figure}[h!]\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{216k30_45_B002_Om002}
%\end{center}\caption[]{
%0.002
%}\label{216k30_45_B002_Om002}\end{figure}

%\begin{figure}[h!]\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{216k30_45_B002_Om01_theta0}
%\end{center}\caption[]{
%0.01
%}\label{216k30_45_B002_Om01_theta0}\end{figure}

%\begin{figure}[h!]\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{216k30_45_B002_Om05_theta0}
%\end{center}\caption[]{
%0.05
%}\label{216k30_45_B002_Om05_theta0}\end{figure}


%In \Fig{b_beq22_Om002_theta0} we can clear see the operation of NEMPI in
%AB: ly
%In \Fig{b_beq22_Om002_theta0} we can clearly see the suppression of the
%turbulent pressure in our simulation.


%\begin{figure}[h!]\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Om002_theta0_bb3_xyz22}
%\end{center}\caption[]{
%$B_z$ in the $y$--$z$ and $x$--$z$ planes for
%$\Co=0.0015$, $\theta=0$.
%}\label{Om002_theta0_bb3_xyz22}\end{figure}

%\section{Results}
%AB: moved \section{Results} to before Peff

%As in earlier work \citep{WLBKR2013}, we use the Fourier filtered
%magnetic and velocity fields as diagnostics for characterizing
%large scale properties of the solution.
%Our Fourier filtered fields, denoted by an overbar,
%include contributions with horizontal wavenumbers below $\kf/2$.
%AB: the text above has now been moved to the model section.


%We have performed runs for different resolutions,
%rotation rates, and latitudes.
%AB: start differently
% Before presenting results with rotation, we investigate first the
% sensitivity of the results on the numerical resolution.
% Next, we perform runs at different rotation rates and latitudes.
%AB: skip for now
%AB.
%All runs are summarized in \Tab{runs1} and \Tab{runs2}.
% All runs are summarized in \Tabs{runs1}{runs2}.
%AB: skip for now


%Next, we compare with the microphysical cutoff wavenumbers,
%namely the kinetic diffusive cutoff wavenumber, $k_{\rm \nu}$,
%the magnetic diffusive cutoff wavenumber, $k_{\rm \eta}$,
%and the Nyquist wavenumber of the simulation, $k_{\rm Ny}$, defined as
%\EQ
%k_{\rm \nu} = \sqrt{\omega_{\rm rms} / \nu}, \quad
%k_{\rm \eta}= \sqrt{\J_{\rm rms} / \eta}, \quad
%k_{N_y} = {\pi / \delta x}.
%\EN
%These wavenumbers measure the kinetic and magnetic diffusive scales,
%and the minimum scale actually resolved in our system.
%An optimal resolution should not resolve scales below the diffusive ones, so
%$k_{N_y}^z > \max (k_{\rm \nu}, k_{\rm \eta})$
%to avoid over-resolving the system.
%In all our runs we find roughly similar values for the cutoff wavenumbers,
%$k_{\rm \nu}\approx280$ and $k_{\rm \eta}\approx70$.
%
%The Kolmogorov length scale controls the smallest hydrodynamic scale
%in the flow, and corresponds to the scale of energy dissipation.
%It is defined as $\ell_{\rm K} = (\nu^3/\epsilon)^{1/4}\approx
%({\nu^3L / \urms^3} )^{1/4}$.
%In our case, using $\urms \approx 0.08$, $\nu = 1 \times 10 ^{-4}$,
%this length is approximate $\ell_{\rm K} \approx 0.01$, which corresponds to
%a wavenumber of $k_{\rm K} \approx 628$.

%Most of our simulations were performed at a resolution of
%$384^2\times768$ meshpoints.
%To assess the dependence of the results on the number of meshpoints,
%we have compared the growth rates at different resolutions; see
%\Tab{runs1} and \Fig{growth_vs_res}.

%IR: Since runs A4 and A5 are shown in Figs. 1-2,
%IR: it is natural to put info about these runs
%IR: to Sect. 3 (they can be repeated in Appendix),
%IR: or move Table A.1. Summary of run with
%IR: different resolutions in Section 3.
%AB: We had it previously as part of the main text,
%AB: but then we moved it to the appendix.
%AB: I'd prefer keeping such reorganizations to a minimum
%AB: at this point. Maybe after the referee's report we
%AB: can think about it again.
%
%IR: It is not indicated in captions of Fig. 3 and 5,
%IR: which run is used.
%AB: Fig.3 is Run A4, and this is now said, but in Fig.5
%AB: each point is for one of the runs of Tables 1, 2, and A.1.
%
%IR: Fig. 5 is located before Fig. 4.
%AB: Joern inserted Fig.4 only last night and is working on it.
%
%IR: I have not found any reference in the text to Fig. 4.
%IR: It is better to remove the name of super-cluster from Fig. 4 (left panel)
%AB: what do you mean? Maybe Joern can respond?
%JW: Yes, I still have to add some discussion concerning Fig. 4
%JW: I didn't do the figure myself, I just used the plots in the fig
%JW: directory.
%JW: I could try to add directly the ps..
%JW: Hm, this does not work, there are jpeg converted in ps...
%AB: I'll check with Illa on Monday.
%W: ok, good.
%IL: I can change the figure caption to theta = 0, but I should also change
%IL : theta --> Theta
%AB: theta is ok (colatitude is now theta, not Theta)
%
%IL: also, do you wanna keep the lines?
%IL: the sidebar is also slightly different, which one do you prefer?
%IL: please, let me know which one of the 3 formats is better and I will
%IL compile the figs accordingly
%AB: Don't
%AB: In what is now Fig.4, please change: tau_tb -> tau_td.
%AB: In Fig.5, Lines are perhaps ok, but can also be removed.
%AB: Please remove "beskow". Color bar looks ok. We can talk about
%AB: it in the morning.
%JW: please make the same colorbar for all three plots.
%JW: If you can remove the lines, it would great. But take care that
%JW: the third figure is used also later in a different figure, where
%JW: the lines are good to have.
%AB: It looks like we have to stick with what we have here.
%JW: Okay, we can live with that...

%JW: Can you add a row with Peff and one with \lambda/\lambda*?
%AB: yes, I guess it could be added.
%AB: I guess you are now doing it, right?
%JW: No, I don't have the data for this. Where can I find it?
%AB: Can we skip this for now?
%JW: yes, okay. This is actually not so important
%IL: I have the data for Peff min, for \lamba/\lambda* not directly. 
%IL: it would need some calculations. 
%IL: I can add this on the plane on Tuesday
%AB: I suggest we don't worry about it now.
%AB: Your thesis is now more urgent.
%JW: this is something for the resubmission.

%This part needs to be expanded and plots added.
%JW: For example: 4 or 6 surface 2D plots showing the bipolar regions
%JW: for different Co, including 0 of Run A2
%JW: Then also a line plot: two panels: upper panel \lambda over Co
%JW: for two or three latitudes,
%JW: lower panel meanBz^max and (2k_\ast E_{\rm M}^{z,\max})^{1/2} over Co
%JW: for two latitudes.
%JW: Then we should this discuss these plots in the text.
%JW: In particular we should compare it with the old results of Illa.
%AB: You could help a bit with this.
%JW: Yes, I could do the line plot, I don't have to data for the
%JW: surface plots
%AB: Do you still have access to Beskow? You could perhaps find your
%way.
%JW: I think I never had access to Beskow, in my time there was only
%lingren at KTH and abisko.
%JW: But, there are some plots in the figure directory, maybe I can
%JW: just take some of those...
%AB: ok, good, but if something else is needed, just let me know
%JW: If we want to include better plots then in figure below, I would
%JW: need the data, but maybe it is fine for now.
%IL: I have all the plots in my laptop...
%IL: which ones would you suggest to include?
%JW: Basically, I wanted just to have plots, if I have now put
%JW: togehter in Fig. 4.
%JW: I think, this is okay for now.

%JW: Maybe a run table for the MFS would be good.
%AB: There is 2 types of domains: small and large.
%AB: For the small ones, we used different values of Omega
%AB: (shown in Figs.9 and 11) and theta (shown in Figs.10 and 12).
%AB: We do already show the growth rates, but we could in the
%AB: table also give the saturation values. In some cases,
%AB: the saturation is complicated, because NEMPI tends to
%AB: die out at late times in some runs. But this
%AB: is not discussed. Should this be done?
%JW: Hm, maybe in the resubmission. The MFS part is already in good
%JW: shape, the DNS needs a bit more work...
%AB: ok, let's just make it ready for submission and rethink
%everything later.
%JW: ok.

%JW: This is what I found in the figure directory
%AB: Illa could work on the first panel, and could work on the
%AB: the other two when she gets hold of archived data.
%AB: I'll move these comments to removed.tex later.

this is in connection with
  \includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{384beskowbb3_xy20}
  \includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{Om002_th60_bb3_xy31}
  \includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{Om01_th60_bb3_xy40}
  \label{bb3_xy}

%JW: more discussion of the table 3 needed. Maybe a small line plot
%would be good.
%AB: You have all the information from the table, so could you
%AB: please do this? That would be helpful. Otherwise we have
%AB: to postpone this to after the time of submission.
%JW: I okay I can do something about this.
%JW: When you want to submit?
%AB: Not before the weekend, but I think Wednesday by the latest.
%JW: okay, I try to do this tomorrow.
%JW: Will do the line plot in a moment.
%AB: should this comment now be removed?
%JW: yes, have now add some text please check.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%IL: I could do this plot, but need to do some computations first.
%IL: it is worthy?
%AB: But I think we show this already in \Fig{peffmin}

Illa says: compute beta_star vs Co,
for that we need the fit, and thus Peff_min and beta_min.
Should be done by hand, takes time.

%JW: Can you add a row with Peff and one with \lambda/\lambda*?
%AB: I guess you are now doing it, right?
%JW: No, I don't have the data for this. Where can I find it?
%AB: You mean the data that entered Fig.9, right? Maybe we should just
%skip this.
%JW: yes, okay. This is actually not so important
%IL: I have the data for Peff min, for \lamba/\lambda* not directly.
%IL: it would need some calculations.
%IL: I can add this on the plane on Tuesday
%JW: If you have Peff, then you can add it, but only if it goes fast.
%JW: The rest we do in the resubmission.
%AB: I guess this is for Tables 1, 2, and A1, when possible. In which
%column?
%JW: I would put it between lambda and BR (if this was your question).
%AB: ok will see.
%IL: added peffmin. 
%IL: afterwards, I can compute betap and betastar...requires some more calculus
%AB: this is now explained in "removed.tex"

%JW: One other general comment to this section:
%JW: Here we discuss several different runs, which are only
%JW: described/tabulated in the Appendix.
%JW: I think it would be better to show here only results of A2, which
%JW: has the same resolution as the runs sets B to J.
%JW: I would then further include Run A2 in Table 1, then a direct
%JW: comparison between rotating and non-rotating run are possible.
%AB: yes, this still needs to be done. Could you help with this?
%AB: All the information is already in the paper.
%JW: I can do something today.
%AB: ok, I don't touch this then. Please delete this comment when ok.
%JW: Will see, when I read through it again.
%JW: Did some small changes, okay now, I think.

