Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances in the Vicinity of Storm‐Enhanced Density at Midlatitudes

Zhang, Shun‐Rong; Nishimura, Y.; Erickson, P. J.; Aa, Ercha; Kil, H.; Deng, Yue; Thomas, E. G.; Rideout, W.; Coster, A. J.; Kerr, Robert B.; Vierinen, Juha

doi:10.1029/2022ja030429

Cited by 12 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mid-latitude electrodynamics during the 7-8 September storm have been reported in previous studies (e.g., Aa et al, 2018Aa et al, , 2019Nishimura et al, 2022;Zhang et al, 2019Zhang et al, , 2022. The Zhang et al (2019Zhang et al ( , 2022 studies focused on the TIDs observed during this storm interval and suggested that an electrodynamic instability is likely driving the zonally propagating MSTIDs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 52%

“…In the dusk sector, electric fields are expected to be predominantly polewards, both in the auroral and sub-auroral regions (e.g., Kunduri et al, 2018;Ruohoniemi & Greenwald, 1996). More recently, Zhang et al (2022) analyzed MSTIDs in the dusk-midnight sector during four geomagnetic storms and suggested that storm time electric fields with a poleward component can drive F region Perkins instability, even in the absence of sporadic-E layers. Our observations and interpretation in Figure 11, emphasizing the role of a poleward directed background electric field are consistent with this scenario.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Storm Time Electrified MSTIDs Observed Over Mid‐Latitude North America

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances (TIDs; Munro, 1948) are wave-like structures which propagate through the ionosphere. TIDs are most commonly expected to be driven by Atmospheric Gravity Waves (AGWs) originating in the neutral atmosphere (Hines, 1960) and can be sensed with instruments used for monitoring ionospheric dynamics such as Global Navigational Satellite Service (GNSS) Total Electron Content (TEC;Saito et al., 1998) and coherent scatter radars (Fukao et al., 1991;Samson et al., 1990). TIDs are further classified as either Large-Scale (LSTIDs) or MSTIDs based on their spatio-temporal scales (Georges, 1968). MSTIDs typically have a time period of 15-60 min, phase velocities of 100-300 m/s, and wavelengths between 200 and 800 km. On the other hand, LSTIDs have phase speeds between 400 and 10,00 m/s, periods above 30 min, and wavelengths above 1,000 km (Hocke & Schlegel, 1996;Hunsucker, 1982). The differences between MSTIDs and LSTIDs are not just limited to their spatio-temporal scales, previous studies have shown that the underlying generation mechanisms and the physics of their propagation also differ (Hocke & Schlegel, 1996). MSTIDs are often linked to AGWs, which are a neutral atmospheric phenomenon generally carrying more energy than the TIDs themselves (Hunsucker, 1982). Such AGW-driven MSTIDs are more commonly reported at high latitudes, and on the dayside, and in the winter (Bristow et al., 1994;Frissell et al., 2014). The AGWs are in turn expected to be driven by factors such tropospheric weather (Chou et al., 2017), Joule heating (Chimonas & Hines, 1970), and ground-based disturbances including tsunamis and earthquakes (Liu et al., 2011). Determining the sources of AGWs/MSTIDs can be challenging since they travel thousands of kilometers from the source and dissipate along the propagation paths (e.g.,

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 52%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Storm Time Electrified MSTIDs Observed Over Mid‐Latitude North America

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the past Solar Cycles 23 and 24, our understanding of the storm‐time mid‐ and low‐latitude ionosphere disturbances, especially the behavior of multi‐scale electron density gradient structures, has been greatly advanced through extensive studies on several intense geospace storm events. These include but are not limited to the Halloween Storm on 29–30 October 2003 (minimum Dst index of −383 nT) and the super storm on 20–21 November 2003 (minimum Dst index of −422 nT) (e.g., Basu et al., 2007; Foster & Rideout, 2005; Gardner et al., 2018; Kil et al., 2006; Lin et al., 2005; Mannucci et al., 2005; Zhao et al., 2005), the St. Patrick's day storms during 17–18 March in 2013 (minimum Dst index of −132 nT) and 2015 (minimum Dst index of −223 nT) (e.g., Carter et al., 2016; Ferdousi et al., 2019; Huba et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2016; Nava et al., 2016; Zakharenkova et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2017), the storm on 22–23 June 2015 (minimum Dst index of −204 nT) (e.g., Astafyeva et al., 2018; Singh & Sripathi, 2017), the storm on 07–08 September 2017 (minimum Dst index of −142 nT) (e.g., Aa et al., 2018; Aa et al., 2019; Mrak et al., 2020; Nishimura et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2019; Z. Wang et al., 2021; Zakharenkova & Cherniak, 2020; Zhang et al., 2019), and the storm on 25–26 August 2018 (minimum Dst index of −174 nT) (e.g., Astafyeva et al., 2022; Chang et al., 2022; Cherniak & Zakharenkova, 2022; Spogli et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include but are not limited to the Halloween Storm on 29-30 October 2003 (minimum Dst index of −383 nT) and the super storm on 20-21 November 2003 (minimum Dst index of −422 nT) (e.g., Basu et al, 2007;Gardner et al, 2018;Kil et al, 2006;Lin et al, 2005;Mannucci et al, 2005;Zhao et al, 2005) Carter et al, 2016;Ferdousi et al, 2019;Huba et al, 2017;Liu et al, 2016;Nava et al, 2016;Zakharenkova et al, 2019;Zhang et al, 2017), the storm on 22-23 June 2015 (minimum Dst index of −204 nT) (e.g., Singh & Sripathi, 2017), the storm on 07-08 September 2017 (minimum Dst index of −142 nT) (e.g., Aa et al, 2018;Aa et al, 2019;Mrak et al, 2020;Nishimura et al, 2021;Qian et al, 2019;Z. Wang et al, 2021;Zakharenkova & Cherniak, 2020;Zhang et al, 2019), and the storm on 25-26 August 2018 (minimum Dst index of −174 nT) (e.g., Astafyeva et al, 2022;Chang et al, 2022;Cherniak & Zakharenkova, 2022;Spogli et al, 2021;Zhang et al, 2022).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Significant Mid‐ and Low‐Latitude Ionospheric Disturbances Characterized by Dynamic EIA, EPBs, and SED Variations During the 13–14 March 2022 Geomagnetic Storm

Zhang

Erickson

et al. 2023

JGR Space Physics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work investigates mid‐ and low‐latitude ionospheric disturbances over the American sector during a moderate but geo‐effective geomagnetic storm on 13–14 March 2022 (π‐Day storm), using ground‐based Global Navigation Satellite System total electron content data, ionosonde observations, and space‐borne measurements from the Global‐scale Observations of Limb and Disk (GOLD), Swarm, the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP), and the Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON) satellites. Our results show that this modest but geo‐effective storm created a number of large ionospheric disturbances, especially the dynamic multi‐scale electron density gradient features in the storm main phase as follows: (a) The low‐latitude equatorial ionization anomaly (EIA) exhibited a dramatic storm‐time deformation and reformation, where the EIA crests evolved into a bright equatorial band for 1–2 hr and then quickly separated back into the typical double‐crest structure with a broad crest width and deep equatorial trough. (b) Strong equatorial plasma bubbles (EPBs) occurred with an abnormally high latitude/altitude extension, reaching the geomagnetic latitude of ∼30°, corresponding to an Apex height of 2,600 km above the dip equator. (c) The midlatitude ionosphere experienced a conspicuous storm‐enhanced density (SED) plume structure associated with the subauroral polarization stream (SAPS). This SED/SAPS feature showed an unusual temporal variation that intensified and diminished twice. These distinct mid‐ and low‐latitude ionospheric disturbances could be attributed to the storm‐time electrodynamic effect of electric field perturbation, along with contributions from neutral dynamics and thermospheric composition change.

show abstract

“…Recently, Zhang et al. (2022) reported observations of MSTIDs over the continental US during geomagnetic storms of 2017 and 2018. They attributed MSTIDs to subauroral storm time, storm enhanced density, subauroral polarization streams and enhanced thermospheric westward winds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Large Scale Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances During Geomagnetic Storms of 17 March and 23 June 2015 in the Australian Region

Kishore,

Kumar

2023

JGR Space Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large scale traveling ionospheric disturbances (LSTIDs) can be detected using the critical frequency of F2 layer (foF2) of the ionosphere. The HF interferometry (HF‐int) technique is applied to the ionosonde data from low and mid latitude stations over Australia. For the first time, we present a comparison of TIDs detected during the geomagnetic storms of 17 March and 23 June 2015. The TID response for these two comparable superstorms is significantly different owing to the differing storm evolution patterns. The storm associated TIDs are more intense and longer compared to the solar terminator. Results demonstrate that the morphology of parameters continually varies over time due to highly dynamic ionospheric response to geomagnetic storms. For the March storms, TIDs velocities were 400–700 m/s at the onset phase, ∼500 m/s during the main phase and ∼600 m/s during the recovery phase. Their propagation directions were equatorward with east/west deviations. Lower period (∼60 min) TIDs were determined during storm onset whereas higher periods (∼140 min) were detected during the recovery phase. The June storm produced a different response. The TID velocity at the onset phase was ∼500 m/s but during the main and recovery phases the velocities were greater than 1,000 m/s. There were large deviations in velocity vectors at the different stations suggesting multiple sources of TID generation and possible resonating effects at middle and low latitude stations. Our findings indicate that while TID detection and storm phases co‐occur, the propagation characteristics of TIDs change dramatically throughout the storm.

show abstract

Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances in the Vicinity of Storm‐Enhanced Density at Midlatitudes

Cited by 12 publications

References 82 publications

Storm Time Electrified MSTIDs Observed Over Mid‐Latitude North America

Storm Time Electrified MSTIDs Observed Over Mid‐Latitude North America

Significant Mid‐ and Low‐Latitude Ionospheric Disturbances Characterized by Dynamic EIA, EPBs, and SED Variations During the 13–14 March 2022 Geomagnetic Storm

Large Scale Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances During Geomagnetic Storms of 17 March and 23 June 2015 in the Australian Region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About