Investigation of global ionospheric response of the severe geomagnetic storm on June 22-23, 2015 by GNSS-based TEC observations

Şentürk, Erman

doi:10.1007/s10509-020-03828-z

Cited by 18 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 9 shows the GIM every two hours from 22:00 on the 22nd to 22:00 UT on the 23rd. TEC enhancement occurred in the initial stages in the North Atlantic region and the middle and high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere (Şentürk, 2020). After the beginning of the magnetic storm at 18:38 UT on the 22nd, the eastward PPEF on the dayside led to the upward

E\times B

drift, while the density decreased at the nightside (Astafyeva et al., 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Variation Characteristics and Prediction Performance of TEC in the Geomagnetic Latitude and Local Time Coordinate

Zhang

2022

Radio Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Total electron content (TEC), as one of the most valuable ionosphere parameters, has many variation characteristics. The TEC has specific characteristics at a given time, suggesting that the global TEC morphology distribution is maintained for a period. We consider the global ionosphere map (GIM) to be the actual ionospheric electron density integration, predict the GIM by a previous period in a geomagnetic latitude and local time (LT) coordinate system, and compare the differences between these two GIMs. The objective of this research is to find the morphological properties of global TEC in the geomagnetic latitude and LT coordinate system, reveal ionospheric behavior and predict TEC using an uncomplicated method. The GIM data for a solar cycle (2009–2020) are used to find the error characteristics and prediction performance of TEC in this coordinate. The equatorial ionization anomaly is the dominant error region. This error shows diurnal and seasonal variations and has a strong correlation with solar activity. The prediction error of this method is smaller than that of the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) model, especially in high solar activity years. The root mean square error of the 3‐hr prediction is 6.53 in 2014 and 2.02 TECU in 2019, and it is 28.5% smaller than that of IRI on average for 2009–2020.

show abstract

E\times B

drift, while the density decreased at the nightside (Astafyeva et al., 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Variation Characteristics and Prediction Performance of TEC in the Geomagnetic Latitude and Local Time Coordinate

Zhang

2022

Radio Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The performance of the empirical models during the storm process, 72 hours before and 72 hours after the main phase of three different severe geomagnetic storms that occurred in March, June and December in 2015, the beginning of the descending phase of the 24 th solar cycle were evaluated. 1 st storm 17-18 March 2015 Patrick's Day geomagnetic storm [31], 2 nd storm 22-23 June 2015 geomagnetic storm [32] and 3 rd storm 20-21 December geomagnetic storm [33] occurred.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

2015 Yılında Meydana Gelen Üç Şiddetli Jeomanyetik Fırtına Süresince Deneysel İyonosferik Modellerin Karşılaştırılması

Sağır

ERBAY²

2022

Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The geomagnetic field acts as both the shield and the electron density regulator for the ionosphere. The effect of the geomagnetic field on the ionosphere can be examined separately for the geomagnetically quiet and disturbed days. In the current study, the performance of the ionospheric models was evaluated for three different severe geomagnetic storms periods during the year of 2015, which was in the beginning of the descending phase of the 24th solar cycle. These three storms occurred during 17-18 March, 22-23 June and 20-21 December of year 2015 in which first one expressed as St. Patrick's Day geomagnetic storm. The relationship between Total Electron Content (TEC) was measured by Global Positioning System (GPS) and evaluated with NeQuick 2, IRI 2016, IRI Plas (without any input- “IRI Plas”) and IRI Plas TEC (with TEC input- “IRI Plas TEC”) global models at three Turkey IGS station namely Ankara (39.57 N, 32.53 E), Istanbul (40.58 N, 29.05 E) and Erzurum (40.39 N, 40.42 E) investigated. The comparison was made separately for pre-storm, during storm and post-storm by using the Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) metrics and symmetric Kullback-Leibler Distance (KLD) methods. Among the empirical models, IRI Plas TEC is generally present to be better results than other models for all storm processes. It can be stated that IRI 2016 is better in the storm return phase compared to other phases of the storm.

show abstract

“…The second strongest geomagnetic storm of cycle 24 was due to three consecutive CMEs, the first two associated with a filament and the third with a solar flare of the M2.6 intensity [37]. The severe storm of 23 June 2015 was studied globally based on TEC values of GIMs, COSMIC radio occultation, and IGS stations [38]. During the initial period of the storm, the response of the ionosphere was asymmetric concerning the hemispheres, mainly due to seasonal effects, with a negative phase of the storm observed in most of the northern hemisphere and a positive phase in the southern hemisphere and western longitudes of the northern hemisphere, over the North Atlantic Ocean.…”

Section: Geomagnetic Storm Of June 2015mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ionosphere over Eastern North Atlantic Midlatitudinal Zone during Geomagnetic Storms

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ionospheric response at middle latitudes to geomagnetic storms is not yet very well understood. Total electron content (TEC) variations associated with eight strong geomagnetic storms between 2015 and 2022 obtained from GNSS receivers in the eastern area of the North Atlantic (Portuguese continental and insular territory) are studied in an attempt to fill this gap. It was found that for most of the studied geomagnetic storms, TEC variations are synchronous for the longitudinal ranges from 27° W and 9° W. In the southern part of the studied region (around 32° N), the amplitude of TEC variations is, in general, significantly higher than in the northern part (around 39° N). Some of the studied geomagnetic storms were associated with TEC variations that we interpret as effects of post-sunset equatorial plasma bubbles that travelled well north from their habitual region. Additionally, though most of the studied storms were accompanied by reports on different kinds of malfunction of GNSS systems (GPS; GALILEO and other), there is no clear pattern in their appearance in dependence on the geomagnetic/ionospheric storms’ strength, commencement time, and its characteristics, in general.

show abstract

Investigation of global ionospheric response of the severe geomagnetic storm on June 22-23, 2015 by GNSS-based TEC observations

Cited by 18 publications

References 46 publications

The Variation Characteristics and Prediction Performance of TEC in the Geomagnetic Latitude and Local Time Coordinate

The Variation Characteristics and Prediction Performance of TEC in the Geomagnetic Latitude and Local Time Coordinate

2015 Yılında Meydana Gelen Üç Şiddetli Jeomanyetik Fırtına Süresince Deneysel İyonosferik Modellerin Karşılaştırılması

Ionosphere over Eastern North Atlantic Midlatitudinal Zone during Geomagnetic Storms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About