1999
DOI: 10.1029/1999ja900229
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Geomagnetic response at low latitude to continuous solar wind pressure variations during northward interplanetary magnetic field

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
23
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
4
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We used 6-min running averages (with a step size of 1-min) of both the SW and geomagnetic data to rule out the shortest period variations and then detrended the geomagnetic data to eliminate the long-term variations. At all stations, we found the highest values of ρ coefficients for a time delay of 37 min, which is comparable to the SW estimated transit time along the radial direction between ACE and the subsolar point of the bowshock (∼31 min, at an average speed of ∼800 km/s) plus a few minutes due to the propagation to the ground (similar results on the time delay between spacecraft and ground observations were also found in the analysis by Francia et al, 1999); in Fig. 7, we show the square root of the SW pressure (the data have been shifted for the time delay of 37 min) and the H component at the different stations in the time interval of interest.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 71%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…We used 6-min running averages (with a step size of 1-min) of both the SW and geomagnetic data to rule out the shortest period variations and then detrended the geomagnetic data to eliminate the long-term variations. At all stations, we found the highest values of ρ coefficients for a time delay of 37 min, which is comparable to the SW estimated transit time along the radial direction between ACE and the subsolar point of the bowshock (∼31 min, at an average speed of ∼800 km/s) plus a few minutes due to the propagation to the ground (similar results on the time delay between spacecraft and ground observations were also found in the analysis by Francia et al, 1999); in Fig. 7, we show the square root of the SW pressure (the data have been shifted for the time delay of 37 min) and the H component at the different stations in the time interval of interest.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 71%
“…In particular, it can be seen that the value of the response at AQU (21 nT/(nPa) 1/2 ) is slightly higher than the value found previously just after the local noon (17.5 nT /(nPa) 1/2 ) in the statistical analysis of Francia et al (1999) and that at the subauroral station NUR, it is higher (42 nT/(nPa) 1/2 ) than the geomagnetic response level (between 20-30 nT/(nPa) 1/2 ) observed after local noon by Russell and Ginskey (1995) in the statistical analysis of SIs at subauroral latitudes. Figure 8 also shows that, along the 210 MM array, situated in premidnight sector, the latitudinal dependence of the response is not clearly defined: in particular, some evidence for a latitudinal increase in the response (although less steep than along the European array) emerges up to ZYK; however, an anomalous high response is observed at MSR, with a value (26 nT/(nPa) 1/2 ) much higher than observed previously at approximately the same latitude during the local evening (∼14 nT/(nPa) 1/2 ) in the statistical study of Francia et al (1999). Also, the response at MGD is much higher with respect to the value found for the same local time by Russell and Ginskey (1995) at subauroral latitudes.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 75%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Their analysis, however, did not include ground observations. On the other hand, a clear correlation between the variations of the H component and the variations of the SW dynamical pressure on time scales of few minutes was found in a case study by Francia et al (1999). This aspect has been corroborated recently by Villante et al (2005b), who presented a joint analysis of SW, magnetospheric and ground observations, and showed that remarkable ground events at "selected" frequencies found a clear correspondence in the magnetospheric field at geostationary orbit, as well as in the SW density (and dynamical pressure).…”
Section: Low Frequency Magnetospheric Modes During the Stormmentioning
confidence: 99%