Magnetosphere–ionosphere coupling during the CME events of 07–12 November 2004

Balan, N.; Alleyne, H.; Walker, S. N.; Rème, H.; McCrea, I. W.; Aylward, A. D.

doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2008.03.015

Cited by 30 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The high latitude thermospheric neutral winds, temperatures and composition have been measured using ground‐based and satellite techniques and compared with models [e.g., Rees et al , 1980; Shepherd et al , 1993; Prölss , 1995; Reigber et al , 2002]. Recent observations show that the heating and expansion of the ionosphere (and hence thermosphere) during geomagnetic storms begin with the onset of the initial phase of the storms [e.g., Balan et al , 2008]. The resulting winds are found to reach the equator during all geomagnetic storms [ Lei et al , 2010; Balan et al , 2011a], preceded by fast surges during storms with short and steady MPs [e.g., Fuller‐Rowell et al , 1994; Balan et al , 2011a].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistics of geomagnetic storms and ionospheric storms at low and mid latitudes in two solar cycles

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] The statistics of occurrence of the geomagnetic storms, and ionospheric storms at Kokubunji (35.7°N, 139.5°E; 26.8°N magnetic latitude) in Japan and Boulder (40.0°N, 254.7°E; 47.4°N) in America are presented using the Dst and peak electron density (Nmax) data in 1985-2005 covering two solar cycles (22-23) when 584 geomagnetic storms (Dst ≤ −50 nT) occurred. In addition to the known solar cycle and seasonal dependence of the storms, the statistics reveal some new aspects. (1) The geomagnetic storms show a preference for main phase (MP) onset at around UT midnight especially for major storms (Dst ≤ −100 nT), over 100% excess MP onsets at UT midnight compared to a uniform distribution. (2) The number of positive ionospheric storms at Kokubunji (about 250) is more than double that at Boulder, and (3) the occurrence of the positive storms at both stations shows a preference for the morning-noon onset of the geomagnetic storms as expected from a physical mechanism of the positive storms. (4) The occurrence of negative ionospheric storms at both stations follows the solar cycle phases (most frequent at solar maximum) better than the occurrence of positive storms, which agrees with the mechanism of the negative storms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistics of geomagnetic storms and ionospheric storms at low and mid latitudes in two solar cycles

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The space weather in Earth's environment generally includes (1) sudden compression of the magnetosphere [e.g., Russell et al , ; Balan et al , ]; (2) intensification of ring currents and the occurrence of geomagnetic storms and auroras [e.g., Gonzalez et al , ; Kamide et al , , ; Ebihara et al , ]; (3) changes in ionospheric electric fields and currents [e.g., Rastogi , ; Kikuchi et al , ; Kelley et al , ; Huang et al , ; Tulasi Ram et al , ]; (4) heating and expansion of the high‐latitude upper atmosphere, which generates thermospheric storms [e.g., Mayr and Volland , ; Fuller‐Rowell et al , ; Tulasi Ram et al , ]; and (5) changes in ionospheric density and temperature, which are known as ionospheric storms [e.g., Matuura , ; Lin et al , ; Heelis et al , ; Balan et al , ; Lu et al , ; Sojka et al , ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CME front and severe space weather

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thanks to the work of a number of scientists who made it known that severe space weather can cause extensive social and economic disruptions in the modern high-technology society. It is therefore important to understand what determines the severity of space weather and whether it can be predicted. We present results obtained from the analysis of coronal mass ejections (CMEs), solar energetic particle (SEP) events, interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), CME-magnetosphere coupling, and geomagnetic storms associated with the major space weather events since 1998 by combining data from the ACE and GOES satellites with geomagnetic parameters and the Carrington event of 1859, the Quebec event of 1989, and an event in 1958. The results seem to indicate that (1) it is the impulsive energy mainly due to the impulsive velocity and orientation of IMF B z at the leading edge of the CMEs (or CME front) that determine the severity of space weather. (2) CMEs having high impulsive velocity (sudden nonfluctuating increase by over 275 km s À1 over the background) caused severe space weather (SvSW) in the heliosphere (failure of the solar wind ion mode of Solar Wind Electron Proton Alpha Monitor in ACE) probably by suddenly accelerating the high-energy particles in the SEPs ahead directly or through the shocks. (3) The impact of such CMEs which also show the IMF B z southward from the leading edge caused SvSW at the Earth including extreme geomagnetic storms of mean Dst MP < À250 nT during main phases, and the known electric power outages happened during some of these SvSW events. (4) The higher the impulsive velocity, the more severe the space weather, like faster weather fronts and tsunami fronts causing more severe damage through impulsive action. (5) The CMEs having IMF B z northward at the leading edge do not seem to cause SvSW on Earth, although, later when the IMF B z turns southward, they can lead to super geomagnetic storms of intensity (Dst min ) less than even À400 nT.

show abstract

“…Several workers have investigated the storm event of November 8-10, 2004, which is discussed in this paper (Balan et al, 2008a;Dabas et al, 2006;Fejer et al, 2007;Dashora and Pandey, 2007;Astafyeva, 2009). In these papers, the effects of storm-time electric fields in modulating ionization distribution is stressed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Balan et al (2008a) investigated the magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling through a prompt penetration electric field (PPEF) in response to a CME during 7-12 November, 2004. They analyzed this event using cluster and ground-based (ESR, EISCAT and Jicamarca radars and magnetometer) observations and found that this event is characterized by the strongest PPEF ever recorded.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ionospheric response to a geomagnetic storm during November 8–10, 2004

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the response of the equatorial, and near equatorial, ionosphere to geomagnetic disturbances during the period November [8][9][10] 2004. Ionosonde data from Trivandrum (8.5• N 77• E and dip 0.5• N) and SHAR (13.5 • N, 80.2 • E, dip ∼5.5• N), magnetic field data from Tirunelveli (8.7• N, 76.9• E, dip latitude 0.5 • S) and Alibag (18.64 • N, 72.87• E), and GUVI O/N 2 data in the Indian longitude sector, are used for the study. The behavior of interplanetary parameters is also examined in conjunction with the ionospheric data. On 8 November, the EIA around noontime is not fully inhibited even though the electrojet strength an indicates inhibition of EIA due to a disturbance dynamo electric field effect. It is the enhanced O/N 2 over TRV and SHAR, with a larger increase over SHAR, which results in a larger (than expected) value of the EIA proxy parameter. On 9 November, the comparable values of f o F 2 at TRV and SHAR around noon time is due to the combined effect of a weakened anomaly in the presence disturbance dynamo electric field effects leading to the EIA crest being near SHAR, and increased O/N 2 values at TRV and SHAR with a larger increase at TRV. On 10 November, the very strong values of the EIA proxy-SHAR parameter is attributed to the combined effects of prompt penetration electric field related modulations of EIA, and significant O/N 2 changes at the equatorial, and near equatorial, latitude. Thus, the study reveals the important role of storm-induced O/N 2 changes, along with prompt penetration electric fields and disturbance dynamo electric fields in modulating the ionization distribution in the equatorial ionization anomaly (EIA) region during this period.

show abstract

Magnetosphere–ionosphere coupling during the CME events of 07–12 November 2004

Cited by 30 publications

References 37 publications

Statistics of geomagnetic storms and ionospheric storms at low and mid latitudes in two solar cycles

Statistics of geomagnetic storms and ionospheric storms at low and mid latitudes in two solar cycles

CME front and severe space weather

Ionospheric response to a geomagnetic storm during November 8–10, 2004

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About