Influence of geomagnetic storms of September 26–30, 2011, on the ionosphere and HF radiowave propagation. I. Ionospheric effects

Клименко, М. В.; Клименко, В. В.; Бессараб, Ф. С.; Ratovsky, Konstantin; Zakharenkova, Irina; Nosikov, I. A.; Степанов, А. А.; Kotova, Daria; Vorobjev, V. G.; Yagodkina, O. I.

doi:10.1134/s0016793215050072

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using model simulation results Namgaladze et al (2000), Lu et al (2008), Balan et al (2009Balan et al ( , 2010 and Klimenko et al (2011cKlimenko et al ( , 2015a confirmed the Mayr et al (1978) theory, reporting that the equatorward neutral wind is required to produce positive ionospheric storms at middle and low latitudes during daytime hours. Considerable debate on mechanisms of the positive ionospheric storms Heelis et al, 2013;Tsurutani et al, 2013) has not ended with a single point of view on this issue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…Using the Irkutsk ionosonde data, Klimenko et al (2015a) reported an occurrence of the positive effects in electron density at midlatitudes during the storm recovery phase. These effects were caused by an increase in the n(O) / n(N 2 ) ratio.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have analyzed the ionosphere response to the geomagnetic storms of 26-30 September 2011 using the GSM TIP simulations with the same model input parameters (Klimenko et al, 2015a;Kotova et al, 2015). Using the Irkutsk ionosonde data, Klimenko et al (2015a) reported an occurrence of the positive effects in electron density at midlatitudes during the storm recovery phase.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 1 Hairston et al (2013), Wang et al (2013), Kotova et al (2015), Klimenko et al (2015a), Solomentsev et al (2015), and Chen et al (2016).…”

Section: Geomagnetic Storm Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ionospheric F-region disturbances during the recovery phase of geomagnetic storms are one of the most unexamined issues on the topic of the ionosphere's response to a geomagnetic storm. This issue has only been broadly discussed in recent years (Balan et al, 2013;Klimenko et al, 2015a). The problem is very important in terms of understanding the interrelated processes in the upper atmosphere, and it is the key problem for the selection of background values to study the ionospheric disturbance effects of different origin.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Similarity and differences in morphology and mechanisms of the <i>fo</i>F2 and TEC disturbances during the geomagnetic storms on 26–30 September 2011

Клименко

Zakharenkova

et al. 2017

Ann. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This study presents an analysis of the groundbased observations and model simulations of ionospheric electron density disturbances at three longitudinal sectors (eastern European, Siberian and American) during geomagnetic storms that occurred on 26-30 September 2011. We use the Global Self-consistent Model of the Thermosphere, Ionosphere and Protonosphere (GSM TIP) to reveal the main mechanisms influencing the storm-time behavior of the total electron content (TEC) and the ionospheric F2 peak critical frequency (foF2) during different phases of geomagnetic storms. During the storm's main phase the long-lasting positive disturbances in TEC and foF2 at sunlit mid-latitudes are mainly explained by the storm-time equatorward neutral wind. The effects of eastward electric field can only explain the positive ionospheric storm in the first few hours of the initial storm phase. During the main phase the ionosphere was more changeable than the plasmasphere. The positive disturbances in the electron content at the plasmaspheric heights (800-20 000 km) at high latitudes can appear simultaneously with the negative disturbances in TEC and foF2. The daytime positive disturbances in foF2 and TEC occurred at middle and low latitudes and at the Equator due to n(O) / n(N 2 ) enhancement during later stage of the main phase and during the recovery phase of the geomagnetic storm. The plasma tube diffusional depletion and negative disturbances in electron and neutral temperature were the main formation mechanisms of the simultaneous formation of the positive disturbances in foF2 and negative disturbances in TEC at low latitudes during the storm's recovery phase.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 1 Hairston et al (2013), Wang et al (2013), Kotova et al (2015), Klimenko et al (2015a), Solomentsev et al (2015), and Chen et al (2016).…”

Section: Geomagnetic Storm Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Similarity and differences in morphology and mechanisms of the <i>fo</i>F2 and TEC disturbances during the geomagnetic storms on 26–30 September 2011

Клименко

Zakharenkova

et al. 2017

Ann. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effects of ionizing energetic electrons and plasma transport in the ionosphere during the initial phase of the December 2006 magnetic storm

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The initial phase of a major geomagnetic storm on 14 December 2006 was selected in order to investigate the ionizing effect of energetic electrons in the ionosphere. The global network of GPS receivers was used to analyze the total electron content (TEC). A strong positive ionospheric storm of ~20 TEC units (TECU) with ~6 h duration was observed on the dayside during the interval of northward interplanetary magnetic field. At the same time, the NOAA/POES satellites observed long‐lasting intense fluxes of >30 keV electrons in the topside ionosphere at middle and low latitudes, including a near‐equatorial forbidden zone outside of the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA). We found that the TEC increases overlapped well with the enhancements of energetic electrons. Modeling of the ionospheric response by using a Global Self‐consistent Model of the Thermosphere, Ionosphere, and Protonosphere, based on the standard mechanisms of plasma transport, could only partially explain the ionospheric response and was unable to predict the long‐duration increase of TEC. For the energetic electrons, we estimated the ionizing effect of ~45 TECU and ~23 TECU in the topside ionosphere, respectively, inside and outside of SAA. The ionizing effect contributed from 50% to 100% of TEC increases and provided the long duration and wide latitudinal extension of the positive ionospheric storm. This finding is a very important argument in supporting significant ionizing effect of energetic electrons in the storm time ionosphere both at middle and low latitudes.

show abstract

Predictable and unpredictable ionospheric disturbances during St. Patrick's Day magnetic storms of 2013 and 2015 and on 8–9 March 2008

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a comparative analysis of first principles Global Self‐consistent Model of the Thermosphere, Ionosphere, and Protonosphere (GSM TIP) in prediction of ionospheric disturbances during three geomagnetic storms: from moderate on 8–9 March 2008 and on 17–18 March 2013 to strong one on 17–18 March 2015, so‐called St. Patrick's Day storms. We have found that in general, the GSM TIP model gave reasonable prediction of both positive and negative ionospheric storms. Most difficulties have been found for the St. Patrick's Day storms. Namely, a strong positive storm at low latitudes above the Pacific and in the South Atlantic Anomaly region on the main and recovery phases could not be predicted by the model. The positive storm could be explained by ionization effect of energetic electron enhancements. Dynamics of negative ionospheric storms at middle latitudes was predicted by the GSM TIP model quite well though the amplitude of storms was underestimated. The latter could result from underestimation of the N2 contribution especially under unusual conditions of anomalous expansion of auroral precipitations to middle latitudes during the 2015 St. Patrick's Day storm.

show abstract

Influence of geomagnetic storms of September 26–30, 2011, on the ionosphere and HF radiowave propagation. I. Ionospheric effects

Cited by 20 publications

References 47 publications

Similarity and differences in morphology and mechanisms of the <i>fo</i>F2 and TEC disturbances during the geomagnetic storms on 26–30 September 2011

Similarity and differences in morphology and mechanisms of the <i>fo</i>F2 and TEC disturbances during the geomagnetic storms on 26–30 September 2011

Effects of ionizing energetic electrons and plasma transport in the ionosphere during the initial phase of the December 2006 magnetic storm

Predictable and unpredictable ionospheric disturbances during St. Patrick's Day magnetic storms of 2013 and 2015 and on 8–9 March 2008

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Influence of geomagnetic storms of September 26–30, 2011, on the ionosphere and HF radiowave propagation. I. Ionospheric effects

Cited by 20 publications

References 47 publications

Similarity and differences in morphology and mechanisms of the &lt;i&gt;fo&lt;/i&gt;F2 and TEC disturbances during the geomagnetic storms on 26–30 September 2011

Similarity and differences in morphology and mechanisms of the &lt;i&gt;fo&lt;/i&gt;F2 and TEC disturbances during the geomagnetic storms on 26–30 September 2011

Effects of ionizing energetic electrons and plasma transport in the ionosphere during the initial phase of the December 2006 magnetic storm

Predictable and unpredictable ionospheric disturbances during St. Patrick's Day magnetic storms of 2013 and 2015 and on 8–9 March 2008

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Similarity and differences in morphology and mechanisms of the <i>fo</i>F2 and TEC disturbances during the geomagnetic storms on 26–30 September 2011

Similarity and differences in morphology and mechanisms of the <i>fo</i>F2 and TEC disturbances during the geomagnetic storms on 26–30 September 2011