Reply to comment by R. M. Thorne and R. B. Horne on Khazanov et al. [2002] and Khazanov et al. [2006]

[1] It is well-known that the effects of electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) waves on ring current (RC) ion and radiation belt (RB) electron dynamics strongly depend on such particle/wave characteristics as the phase-space distribution function, frequency, wave-normal angle, wave energy, and the form of wave spectral energy density. The consequence is that accurate modeling of EMIC wave spatialtemporal-spectral distributions and RC particles requires robust inclusion of the interdependent dynamics of wave growth/damping and wave propagation/refraction/reflection, along with wave tunneling and mode conversion and particles. Such a self-consistent RC-EMIC wave model is being progressively developed by Khazanov et al. [2002, 2003a, 2006, 2007]. This model is based on a system of coupled kinetic equations for the RC and EMIC wave power spectral density with explicit inclusion of the ray tracing equations. [2] The theoretical formalism for RC ions and RB electrons is well established and is based on gyroaveraged and bounce-averaged kinetic equations that have been developed over the years and systemized in the book by Khazanov [1979]. The application of this formalism to RC ions was continued by Khazanov and Kozyra at the University of Michigan during 1991–1994 and formed a large part of the Ph.D. dissertation work of Fok [1993] and of Jordanova [1995]. Khazanov et al. also applied this formalism to the study of ionosphere-plasmasphere transport of suprathermal electrons [Khazanov et al., 1992, 1994], and global photo [Khazanov et al., 1996; Khazanov and Liemohn, 2002] and plasma sheet [Khazanov et al., 1998] electron transport. This formalism was also generalized to study relativistic electron transport [Khazanov et al., 1999, 2000], as well as different aspects of RC and RB electron formation using various magnetospheric electric and magnetic field topologies [Khazanov et al., 2003b, 2004b, 2004c]. All these above-mentioned studies are the heritage of our RC-EMIC wave model that was presented by Khazanov et al. [2006]. [3] Thorne and Horne [2007, hereinafter referred to as TH2007] call the Khazanov et al. [2002, 2006] results into question in their Comment. The points in contention can be summarized as follows. TH2007 claim that (1) important damping of waves by thermal heavy ions is treated incorrectly in our model, and Landau damping during resonant interaction with thermal electrons is not included; (2) EMIC wave damping due to RC O is not included in our simulation of the 2–7 May 1998 storm; (3) nonlinear processes limiting EMIC wave amplitude are not included in our model; (4) growth of the background electromagnetic fluctuations to a physically significant amplitude must ‘‘occur during a single transit of the unstable region’’ with subsequent damping in the vicinity of the bi-ion latitude, and consequently the bounce-averagedwave kinetic equation employed in the code is not valid. Our reply will address each of these points as well as other criticisms mentioned in the Comment. [4] TH2007 is focused on two of our papers that are separated by 4 years. Significant progress in the selfconsistent treatment of the RC-EMIC wave system has been achieved during those years. The paper by Khazanov et al. [2006] presents the latest version of our model, and in this Reply we refer mostly to this paper.