Impact of the February 3–4, 2022 geomagnetic storm on ionospheric S4 amplitude scintillation index: Observations and implications

Duann, Yi; Chang, Loren C.; Liu, Jann-Yenq

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2023.09.036

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, strong DDEF effects are prevalent on S4 during the recovery/post-recovery phase of the storm, as seen in Figure 17. Similar findings have been reported by Duann et al [53] regarding the role of storm-time electric fields on S4 scintillation during the loss of SpaceX Starlink satellites. The authors, utilizing the F7/C2 profiles, observed a complete disappearance of strong S4 during the post-storm conditions.…”

Section: On the Amplitude Scintillationsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The number reduced significantly during the recovery period on 24 March. The above analysis not only explains the strong amplitude scintillation caused by EPBs but also a strong correlation between the irregularity occurrence and F7/C2 driven S4 ≥ 0.5 percentage [39,52,53]. There could be a possibility of irregularity occurrence at the longitudes not covered in this study; nevertheless, that contribution may be insignificant during the sunset/sunrise hours at longitudinally conjugate Asian and American sectors (covered in this study).…”

Section: On the Amplitude Scintillationmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…The F7/C2 daily RO profiles can be obtained from the Taiwan Analysis Center for COSMIC (TACC) website (https://tacc.cwa.gov.tw/v2/, accessed on 20 January 2024) as a level-1 scn1c2 product. The mission's data, in its early stages, has been used to study ionospheric effects as well as the EPB signatures through S4 profiles [39,52,53].…”

Section: Ionospheric Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Multi-Instrument Observation of the Ionospheric Irregularities and Disturbances during the 23–24 March 2023 Geomagnetic Storm

Tahir,

Wu,

Shah

et al. 2024

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work investigates the ionospheric response to the March 2023 geomagnetic storm over American and Asian sectors from total electron content (TEC), rate of TEC index, ionospheric heights, Swarm plasma density, radio occultation profiles of Formosat-7/Cosmic-2 (F7/C2), Fabry-Perot interferometer driven neutral winds, and E region electric field. During the storm’s main phase, post-sunset equatorial plasma bubbles (EPBs) extend to higher latitudes in the western American longitudes, showing significant longitudinal differences in the American sector. Over the Indian longitudes, suppression of post-sunset irregularities is observed, attributed to the westward prompt penetration electric field (PPEF). At the early recovery phase, the presence of post-midnight/near-sunrise EPBs till post-sunrise hours in the American sector is associated with the disturbance of dynamo-electric fields (DDEF). Additionally, a strong consistency between F7/C2 derived amplitude scintillation (S4) ≥ 0.5 and EPB occurrences is observed. Furthermore, a strong eastward electric field induced an increase in daytime TEC beyond the equatorial ionization anomaly crest in the American region, which occurred during the storm’s main phase. Both the Asian and American sectors exhibit negative ionospheric storms and inhibition of ionospheric irregularities at the recovery phase, which is dominated by the disturbance dynamo effect due to equatorward neutral winds. A slight increase in TEC in the Asian sector during the recovery phase could be explained by the combined effect of DDEF and thermospheric composition change. Overall, storm-time ionospheric variations are controlled by the combined effects of PPEF and DDEF. This study may further contribute to understanding the ionospheric responses under the influence of storm-phase and LT-dependent electric fields.

show abstract

Section: On the Amplitude Scintillationsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: On the Amplitude Scintillationmentioning

confidence: 57%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multi-Instrument Observation of the Ionospheric Irregularities and Disturbances during the 23–24 March 2023 Geomagnetic Storm

Tahir,

Wu,

Shah

et al. 2024

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Multiple studies have analyzed the solar eruptive events (e.g., Dang et al, 2022;Fang et al, 2022;Gopalswamy et al, 2023;Kataoka et al, 2022;Pal et al, 2023), Joule-heating-mediated changes in thermospheric conditions as a result of their interaction with Earth's magnetosphere (e.g., He et al, 2023;Laskar et al, 2023;Lin et al, 2022;Lockwood et al, 2023), thermospheric drag and orbital decay of the Starlink satellites (e.g., Berger et al, 2023;Guarnieri et al, 2023;Y. Zhang et al, 2022), as well as magnetospheric and ionospheric effects (e.g., Duann et al, 2023;Gulyaeva et al, 2023;Tsurutani et al, 2022;Tsyganenko et al, 2022) due to the geomagnetic storms of 3-4 February 2022. This is the first study that employs data-driven magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) modeling of Earth's magnetosphere, alongside detailed investigations of the near-Sun and near-Earth environments concurrent with the loss of the Starlink satellites, to interpret the physical processes that led to this mishap.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Loss of Starlink Satellites in February 2022: How Moderate Geomagnetic Storms Can Adversely Affect Assets in Low‐Earth Orbit

Baruah,

Roy,

Sinha

et al. 2024

Space Weather

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On 3 February 2022, SpaceX launched 49 Starlink satellites, 38 of which unexpectedly de‐orbited. Although this event was attributed to space weather, definitive causality remained elusive because space weather conditions were not extreme. In this study, we identify solar sources of the interplanetary coronal mass ejections that were responsible for the geomagnetic storms around the time of launch of the Starlink satellites and for the first time, investigate their impact on Earth's magnetosphere using magnetohydrodynamic modeling. The model results demonstrate that the satellites were launched into an already disturbed space environment that persisted over several days. However, on performing comparative satellite orbital decay analyses, we find that space weather alone was not responsible but conspired together with a low‐altitude insertion and low satellite mass‐to‐area ratio to precipitate this unusual loss. Our work bridges space weather causality across the Sun–Earth system—with relevance for space‐based human technologies.

show abstract

“…Strong geomagnetic storms occurred infrequently during the early part of the 25th solar cycle. However, the occurrence of medium geomagnetic storms also had a severe impact on navigation, communications, and aerospace [27]. For example, the SpaceX storm event in February 2022 resulted in 38 SpaceX Starlink satellites not being able to ascend to their assigned orbits and having to re-enter the atmosphere to be destroyed [28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Strong Geomagnetic Storms on the Ionosphere and Degradation of Precise Point Positioning Accuracy during the 25th Solar Cycle Rising Phase: A Case Study

Wang,

Yuan,

et al. 2023

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approaching the peak year of the 25th solar activity cycle, the frequency of strong geomagnetic storms is gradually increasing, which seriously affects the navigation and positioning performance of GNSS. Based on the globally distributed GNSS station data and FORMOSAT-7/COSMIC-2 occultation data, this paper explores for the first time the effects of the G4-class geomagnetic storm that occurred on 23–24 April 2023 on the global ionosphere, especially the ionospheric equatorial anomalies and F-layer perturbations. It reveals the precise point positioning (PPP) accuracy degradation during a geomagnetic storm. The results show that the ionospheric rate of total electron content index (ROTI) and near high latitude GNSS phase scintillations index have varying levels of perturbation during geomagnetic storms, with the maximum ROTI and phase scintillations index exceeding 0.5 TECU/min and 0.8, respectively. The equatorial ionization anomaly (EIA) shows an enhanced state (positive ionospheric storms) during geomagnetic storms, and the cause of this phenomenon is most likely the equatorward neutral wind. The variation of the S4 index of the FORMOSAT-7/COSMIC-2 satellite reveals the uplift of the F-layer during geomagnetic storms. During geomagnetic storms, the PPP accuracy degrades most seriously at high latitudes, the maximum MAE exceeds 2.3 m, and the RMS in the three-dimensional (3D) direction exceeds 2.0 m. These investigations can provide case support for space weather and GNSS studies of the impact of geomagnetic storms during peak solar activity years.

show abstract

Impact of the February 3–4, 2022 geomagnetic storm on ionospheric S4 amplitude scintillation index: Observations and implications

Cited by 6 publications

References 38 publications

Multi-Instrument Observation of the Ionospheric Irregularities and Disturbances during the 23–24 March 2023 Geomagnetic Storm

Multi-Instrument Observation of the Ionospheric Irregularities and Disturbances during the 23–24 March 2023 Geomagnetic Storm

The Loss of Starlink Satellites in February 2022: How Moderate Geomagnetic Storms Can Adversely Affect Assets in Low‐Earth Orbit

Effects of Strong Geomagnetic Storms on the Ionosphere and Degradation of Precise Point Positioning Accuracy during the 25th Solar Cycle Rising Phase: A Case Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About