Effect of geomagnetic storms (substorms) on the ionosphere: 1. A review

Blagoveshchenskii, D. V.

doi:10.1134/s0016793213030031

Cited by 37 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, it is known that during intensive disturbances the critical frequency foF2 decreases (Danilov and Laštovička, 2002;Blagoveshchenskii, 2013). It is of interest to compare the critical frequency values for the quiet day of March 16 th with those for the disturbed day of March 17 th .…”

Section: Tomography Methodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ionosphere dynamics in the auroral zone during the magnetic storm of March 17–18, 2015

Blagoveshchensky

Sergeeva

2016

Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Tomography Methodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ionosphere dynamics in the auroral zone during the magnetic storm of March 17–18, 2015

Blagoveshchensky

Sergeeva

2016

Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The first observations of suprathermal MI in Earth's ring current and near-Earth lunar pickup ions (PUI) were made with this class of instrument by Klecker et al (1986) and Hilchenbach et al (1992), respectively. Effects including enhanced upward neutral winds, plasma wave activity during disturbed conditions at and above~110-km altitude, and F region altitude variations occur from low to high geographic latitudes before, during, and after the more intense phases of magnetospheric disturbances (see, e.g., Price & Jacka, 1991;Danilov & Lastovica, 2001;Goncharenko et al, 2004;Blagoveshchenskii, 2013). Twenty-four years ago, Peterson et al (1994) noted: "Twenty years after the discovery that significant fluxes of O + flow out of the ionosphere (Shelley et al, 1972), there exists little or no quantitative information about the relative importance of the various physical processes responsible for the energization and extraction of O + and other heavy ions from the Earth's ionosphere."…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suprathermal Magnetospheric Atomic and Molecular Heavy Ions at and Near Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn: Observations and Identification

Christon¹,

Hamilton

Mitchell

et al. 2020

JGR Space Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine long-term suprathermal, singly charged heavy ion composition measured at three planets using functionally identical charge-energy-mass ion spectrometers, one on Geotail, orbiting Earth at 9-30 Re, the other on Cassini, in interplanetary space, during Jupiter flyby, and then in orbit around Saturn. O + , a principal suprathermal (~80-220 keV/e) heavy ion in each magnetosphere, derives primarily from outflowing ionospheric O + at Earth, but mostly from satellites and rings at Jupiter and Saturn. Comparable amounts of Iogenic O + and S + are present at Jupiter. Ions escaping the magnetospheres: O + and S + at Jupiter; C + , N + , O + , H 2 O + , 28 M + (possibly an aggregate of the molecular ions, MI, CO + , N 2 + , HCNH + , and/or C 2 H 4 + ), and O 2 + at Saturn; and N + , O + , N 2 + , NO + , O 2 + , and Fe + at Earth. Generally, escaped atomic ions (MI) at Earth and Saturn have similar (higher) ratios to O + compared to their magnetospheric ratios; Saturn's H 2 O + and Fe + ratios are lower. At Earth, after O + and N + , ionospheric origin N 2 + , NO + , and O 2 + (with proportions~0.9:1.0:0.2) dominate magnetospheric heavy ions, consistent with recent high-altitude/latitude ionospheric measurements and models; average ion count rates correlate positively with geomagnetic and solar activity. At~27-33 amu/e, Earth's MIs dominate over lunar pickup ions (PUIs) in the magnetosphere; MIs are roughly comparable to lunar PUIs in the magnetosheath, and lunar PUIs dominate over MIs beyond Earth's bow shock. Lunar PUIs are detected at~39-48 amu/e in the lobe and possibly in the plasma sheet at very low levels.Plain Language Summary Some of the air we breathe, a gas of~78% N 2 and~21% O 2 molecules, expands into the high-altitude atmosphere, the thermosphere, and becomes ionized by sunlight and charged particles from space to become the ionosphere. Molecules can break up into their component atoms or combine with other ions to form other molecules. Some ionospheric ions flow out into space, mostly during geomagnetic disturbances, and are further energized. Magnetospheres, plasma bubbles filled with these energized particles, form around planets with magnetic fields, like the Earth whose magnetic field stands off the steady stream of ions and electrons from the Sun called the solar wind. Particles inside the bubbles can be planet or satellite origin, and outside the bubble, they are mostly Sun origin. However, some inside get out and some outside get in. Improved ion measurements from space give us information to help unravel both the outflowing particles' interactions on the way out and when and how ions escape or penetrate magnetospheres. Planets' satellites and rings also contribute ionized and neutral particles to the mix, making various determinations more difficult than others. Ions from solar wind and sunlight impacting Earth's satellite, the Moon, which spends most of its time outside Earth's magnetosphere, dominate ion composition at some masses and energies there while contributing little overall inside...

show abstract

“…In this paper we focus on ionospheric storm disturbances in the Arctic ionosphere. The impact of geomagnetic storms on the ionosphere and the underlying first principles behind these physical and chemical processes have been discussed by numerous authors, including, e.g., Rodger et al [1992], Buonsanto [1999], and Blagoveshchenskii [2013]. Nevertheless, the precise geophysical background behind this complex system is still not completely understood [e.g., Lastovicka, 2002].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and other manifestations of solar activity can trigger magnetospheric storms that may cause global or regional geomagnetic disturbances impacting the ionosphere. These effects will result in changes in the regular (e.g., diurnal and seasonal) ionospheric processes [e.g., Blagoveshchenskii, 2013;Durgonics et al, 2014].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On Earth's surface the outset of such interaction is seen as the sudden impulse (SI), which can be detected using, for example, geomagnetic field horizontal (H) component measurements collected by magnetometers. There is a set of well-established indices to identify the early stages of these interactions including the global disturbance storm time (Dst) index [e.g., Anderson et al, 2005;Le et al, 2004;Blagoveshchenskii, 2013] or the regional auroral electrojet (AE) index which is derived from auroral region magnetic stations and the polar cap north (PCN) index computed from a near-pole single magnetic station (details on the indices can be found in, e.g., Wei et al [2009] and Vennerstrøm et al [1991]). A sudden decrease in the Dst values typically indicates a change in the globally symmetric and asymmetric (partial) components of the ring current suggesting a global geomagnetic event [Liemohn et al, 2001] of the geomagnetic field can be observed using data from the individual magnetic observatories in the Arctic region.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multiinstrument observations of a geomagnetic storm and its effects on the Arctic ionosphere: A case study of the 19 February 2014 storm

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a multiinstrumented approach for the analysis of the Arctic ionosphere during the 19 February 2014 highly complex, multiphase geomagnetic storm, which had the largest impact on the disturbance storm‐time index that year. The geomagnetic storm was the result of two powerful Earth‐directed coronal mass ejections (CMEs). It produced a strong long lasting negative storm phase over Greenland with a dominant energy input in the polar cap. We employed global navigation satellite system (GNSS) networks, geomagnetic observatories, and a specific ionosonde station in Greenland. We complemented the approach with spaceborne measurements in order to map the state and variability of the Arctic ionosphere. In situ observations from the Canadian CASSIOPE (CAScade, Smallsat and IOnospheric Polar Explorer) satellite's ion mass spectrometer were used to derive ion flow data from the polar cap topside ionosphere during the event. Our research specifically found that (1) thermospheric O/N2 measurements demonstrated significantly lower values over the Greenland sector than prior to the storm time. (2) An increased ion flow in the topside ionosphere was observed during the negative storm phase. (3) Negative storm phase was a direct consequence of energy input into the polar cap. (4) Polar patch formation was significantly decreased during the negative storm phase. This paper addresses the physical processes that can be responsible for this ionospheric storm development in the northern high latitudes. We conclude that ionospheric heating due to the CME's energy input caused changes in the polar atmosphere resulting in Ne upwelling, which was the major factor in high‐latitude ionosphere dynamics for this storm.

show abstract

Effect of geomagnetic storms (substorms) on the ionosphere: 1. A review

Cited by 37 publications

References 22 publications

Ionosphere dynamics in the auroral zone during the magnetic storm of March 17–18, 2015

Ionosphere dynamics in the auroral zone during the magnetic storm of March 17–18, 2015

Suprathermal Magnetospheric Atomic and Molecular Heavy Ions at and Near Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn: Observations and Identification

Multiinstrument observations of a geomagnetic storm and its effects on the Arctic ionosphere: A case study of the 19 February 2014 storm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About