Low Ionosphere Density Above the Earthquake Epicentre Region of Mw 7.2, El Mayor–Cucapah Earthquake Evident from Dense CORS Data

Sharma, Gopal; Nayak, Karan; Romero-Andrade, Rosendo; Aslam, M. A. Mohammed; Sarma, K. K.; Aggarwal, S. P.

doi:10.1007/s12524-024-01837-x

Cited by 15 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the anticipation of seismic events up to 15 days in advance was observed by DEMETER, either through ion density or electron density measures [24]. Furthermore, seismo-ionospheric GPS TEC disturbances sporadically manifest approximately 30 to one day before the occurrence of earthquakes, specifically within a 24 h timeframe preceding M5+ EQs on a global scale [25][26][27]. Outgoing long-wave electromagnetic radiation, the energy emitted from Earth, before M6 EQs showed anomalies 5-10 days before the mainshock of large EQs [28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating a Possible Correlation between NOAA-Satellite-Detected Electron Precipitations and South Pacific Tectonic Events

Fidani,

D’Arcangelo,

De Santis

et al. 2024

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On 4 March 2021, a devastating M8.1 earthquake struck the Kermadec Islands of New Zealand. Given the tremendous energy released during the event, we sought to investigate the event’s potential impact on the ionosphere and the inner Van Allen Belt using data from the high-energy electron detectors on board the NOAA-18 satellite. The survey was also extended to the strongest shallow M6.5+ earthquakes occurring between 150° and 190° in longitude, and between −5° and −35° in latitude over the previous ten years. In nearly all cases, evident electron fluxes entering the loss cone were observed. To explore the possibility of a connection between ionospheric signals and tectonic events in this intensely active region, we analyzed electron losses from the inner Van Allen Belt, taking into account latitude, longitude, day/night times, and proximity to the South Atlantic Anomaly. Compared to previous studies, here only the most significant loss phenomena persistent in the ionosphere were considered. Particular interest was reserved for the intense electron loss events that had a duration spanning from a few to several minutes and occurred several hours before and after strong seismic events. Thereafter, time series of electron counting rates and strong Southern Pacific earthquakes were transformed into binary series, and the series multiplication was investigated. The results suggest four peaks of association, including a first couple between electron perturbations detected for ascending semi-orbits and seismic events and a second one between electron perturbations detected in the southern ionosphere and seismic events. They both anticipated the occurrence of earthquakes, occurring around 4 h before them. Other couples were observed between electron perturbations detected for descending semi-orbits and seismic events and between electron perturbations detected in the northern ionosphere and seismic events. They both occurred around 3 h after the occurrence of earthquakes. The case of perturbations anticipating seismic events has the intriguing properties of sustaining the hypothesis that a physical interaction occurred around 6 h before seismic events as in the West Pacific case. A physical model of electrons detected far several thousands of km from the earthquake epicenters was also presented. However, a simulation of random seismic events suggested that the null hypothesis cannot be fully rejected for these associations, prompting many more analyses and case studies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating a Possible Correlation between NOAA-Satellite-Detected Electron Precipitations and South Pacific Tectonic Events

Fidani,

D’Arcangelo,

De Santis

et al. 2024

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many data sources can be used in monitoring the ionosphere (Ionosonde, SWARM, Formosat/COSMIC, TSX, JASON, GRACE, GNSS). In recent years, the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) has become a valuable tool for ionosphere-based studies [16][17][18][19]. One of the most important ionospheric quantities is the VTEC, which is capable of indicating variations within the ionosphere.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Ionospheric VTEC Retrieved from Multi-Instrument Observations

Oztan,

Duman,

Alcay

et al. 2024

Atmosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the Vertical Total Electron Content (VTEC) estimation performance of multi-instruments on a global scale during different ionospheric conditions. For this purpose, GNSS-based VTEC data from Global Ionosphere Maps (GIMs), COSMIC (F7/C2)—Feng–Yun 3C (FY3C) radio occultation (RO) VTEC, SWARM–VTEC, and JASON–VTEC were utilized. VTEC assessments were conducted on three distinct days: geomagnetic active (17 March 2015), solar active (22 December 2021), and quiet (11 December 2021). The VTEC values of COSMIC/FY3C RO, SWARM, and JASON were compared with data retrieved from GIMs. According to the results, COSMIC RO–VTEC is more consistent with GIM–VTEC on a quiet day (the mean of the differences is 4.38 TECU), while the mean of FY3C RO–GIM differences is 7.33 TECU on a geomagnetic active day. The range of VTEC differences between JASON and GIM is relatively smaller on a quiet day, and the mean of differences on active/quiet days is less than 6 TECU. Besides the daily comparison, long-term results (1 January–31 December 2015) were also analyzed by considering active and quiet periods. Results show that Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values of COSMIC RO, FY3C RO, SWARM, and JASON are 5.02 TECU, 6.81 TECU, 16.25 TECU, and 5.53 TECU for the quiet period, and 5.21 TECU, 7.07 TECU, 17.48 TECU, and 5.90 TECU for the active period, respectively. The accuracy of each data source was affected by solar/geomagnetic activities. The deviation of SWARM–VTEC is relatively greater. The main reason for the significant differences in SWARM–GIM results is the atmospheric measurement range of SWARM satellites (460 km–20,200 km (SWARM A, C) and 520 km–20,200 km (SWARM B), which do not contain a significant part of the ionosphere in terms of VTEC estimation.

show abstract

“…Salikhov used the Doppler sounding technique, employing the continuous monitoring of the Doppler frequency shift of reflected radio signals to investigate the ionosphere above earthquake sources [35]. Thereafter, Sharma, Tachema and Nayak investigated and supported the correlation between seismic activity and ionospheric anomalies through the analysis of total electron content (TEC) fluctuations, and crustal stress (b-value) precursors to identify potential precursors and assess their effectiveness in short-term seismic prediction for the 2010 Mw 7.2 Mexico earthquake, the 2011 Mw 5.1 Lorca earthquake in Spain, and the 2022 Mw 7.7 Colima earthquake in Mexico [36][37][38].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Study on Multi-Parameter Ionospheric Disturbances Associated with the 2015 Mw 7.5 and 2023 Mw 6.3 Earthquakes in Afghanistan

Rasheed,

Chen,

et al. 2024

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a multi-parameter ionospheric disturbance analysis of the total electron content (TEC), density (Ne), temperature (Te), and critical frequency foF2 variations preceding two significant earthquake events (2015 Mw 7.5 and 2023 Mw 6.3) that occurred in Afghanistan. The analysis from various ground stations and low-Earth-orbit satellite measurements involved employing the sliding interquartile method to process TEC data of Global Ionospheric Maps (GIMs), comparing revisit trajectories to identify anomalies in Ne and Te from Swarm satellites, applying machine learning-based envelope estimation for GPS-derived TEC measurements, utilizing the least square method for foF2 data and ionograms obtained from available base stations in the Global Ionosphere Radio Observatory (GIRO). After excluding potential influences caused by solar and geomagnetic activities, the following phenomena were revealed: (1) The GIM-TEC variations displayed positive anomalies one day before the 2015 Mw 7.5 earthquake, while significant positive anomalies occurred on the shock days (7, 11, and 15) of the 2023 Mw 6.3 earthquake; (2) the Swarm satellite observations (Ne and Te) for the two earthquakes followed almost the same appearance rates as GIM-TEC, and a negative correlation between the Ne and Te values was found, with clearer appearance at night; (3) there were prominent positive TEC anomalies 8 days and almost 3 h before the earthquakes at selected GPS stations, which were nearest to the earthquake preparation area. The anomalous variations in TEC height and plasma density were verified by analyzing the foF2, which confirmed the ionospheric perturbations. Unusual ionospheric disturbances indicate imminent pre-seismic events, which provides the potential opportunity to provide aid for earthquake prediction and natural hazard risk management in Afghanistan and nearby regions.

show abstract

Low Ionosphere Density Above the Earthquake Epicentre Region of Mw 7.2, El Mayor–Cucapah Earthquake Evident from Dense CORS Data

Cited by 15 publications

References 84 publications

Investigating a Possible Correlation between NOAA-Satellite-Detected Electron Precipitations and South Pacific Tectonic Events

Investigating a Possible Correlation between NOAA-Satellite-Detected Electron Precipitations and South Pacific Tectonic Events

Analysis of Ionospheric VTEC Retrieved from Multi-Instrument Observations

A Comparative Study on Multi-Parameter Ionospheric Disturbances Associated with the 2015 Mw 7.5 and 2023 Mw 6.3 Earthquakes in Afghanistan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About