Ionospheric response to magnetic activity at low and mid-latitude stations

Adebiyi, S.J.; Adimula, I. A.; Oladipo, O.A.; Joshua, B.W.; Adebesin, B.O.; Ikubanni, S.O.

doi:10.2478/s11600-014-0205-x

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mid-latitude was generally depleted with a negative storm effect prior to variation during the SSC period. This is consistent with the results obtained by Adebiyi et al (2014) and Adekoya et al (2012b). Adekoya et al (2012b) had investigated the effect of geomagnetic storm on middle latitude ionospheric F2 during the storm of 2-6 April 2004, and reported that positive-negative (PN) storm phase in D(foF2) variation during SSC will signal the upcoming of an intense negative storm during the main phase.…”

Section: Discussion and Comparison With Previous Resultssupporting

confidence: 94%

“…During the IS, the atmosphere at the low-latitude region responded with an intense positive ionospheric storm effect and the effect was vice versa over the mid-latitude station. This observation was consistent with the recent work of Adekoya and Adebesin (2014) and Adebiyi et al (2014). However, the ionospheric effect is higher in the low latitude than it appears in the mid-latitude.…”

Section: Discussion and Comparison With Previous Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ionospheric and Solar Wind Variation during Magnetic Storm Onset and Main Phase at Low- and Mid-latitudes

Adekoya

Adebesin

2015

Acta Geophys.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between the F2-layer critical frequency and solar wind parameters during magnetic storm sudden commencement (SSC) and main phase periods for intense (IS) and very intense (VIS) class of storms is investigated. The analysis covers low-and mid-latitude stations. The effects of ionospheric storm during SSC period is insignificant compared to the main phase, but can trigger the latter. The main phase is characterized by severe negative storm effect at both latitudes during VIS periods while it is latitudinal symmetric for IS observations. The IS reveal positive/negative storm phase in the low-/mid-latitudes, respectively. Ionization density effect is more prominent during VIS events, and is attributed to large energetic particle and solar activity input into the earth magnetosphere. However, ionospheric effect is more significant at the low-latitude than at the mid-latitude. Lastly, ionospheric storm effect during a geomagnetic storm may be related to the combinational effect of interplanetary and geomagnetic parameters and internal ionospheric effect, not necessarily the solar wind alone.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Comparison With Previous Resultssupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussion and Comparison With Previous Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

Ionospheric and Solar Wind Variation during Magnetic Storm Onset and Main Phase at Low- and Mid-latitudes

Adekoya

Adebesin

2015

Acta Geophys.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reference values of the ionospheric parameter have been utilized in various studies to distinguish the effects of a geomagnetic storm on the ionosphere. Szuszczewicz et al (1998) set the reference with the average value for 3 days, and Adebiyi et al (2014) and Lissa et al (2020) did with the 5 days average values. The 7-and 10-day average values were used by Fagundes et al (2016) and Jin et al (2017), respectively.…”

Section: Comparison Of Lstm-storm and Lstm-quiet Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential of Regional Ionosphere Prediction Using a Long Short‐Term Memory Deep‐Learning Algorithm Specialized for Geomagnetic Storm Period

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In our previous study (Moon et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.77.1265), we developed a long short‐term memory (LSTM) deep‐learning model for geomagnetic quiet days (LSTM‐quiet) to perform effective long‐term predictions for the regional ionosphere. However, their model could not predict geomagnetic storm days effectively at all. This study developed an LSTM model suitable for geomagnetic storms using the new training data set and redesigning input parameters and hyper‐parameters. We collected 131 days of geomagnetic storm cases from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2019, provided by the Japan Meteorological Agency's Kakioka Magnetic Observatory, and obtained the interplanetary magnetic field Bz, Dst, Kp, and AE indices related to the geomagnetic storm corresponding to each storm date from the OMNI database. These indices and F2 parameters (foF2 and hmF2) of Jeju ionosonde (33.43°N, 126.30°E) were used as input parameters for the LSTM model. To test and verify the predictive performance and the usability of the LSTM model for geomagnetic storms developed in this manner, we created and diagnosed the 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, and 24‐h predictive LSTM models. According to the results of this study, the LSTM storm model for 24‐h developed in this study achieved a predictive performance during the three geomagnetic storms about 32% (10%), 34% (17%), and 37% (5%) better in root mean square error of foF2 (hmF2) than the LSTM quiet model (Moon et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.77.1265), SAMI2, and IRI‐2016 models. We propose that the short‐term predictions of less than 3 h are sufficiently competitive than other traditional ionospheric models. Thus, this study suggests that our model can be used for short‐term prediction and monitoring of the regional mid‐latitude ionosphere.

show abstract

“…According to Rishbeth and Mendillo (2001), geomagnetic activity complimented by sources from lower atmospheric layers plays a dominant role in the dayto-day variability of the ionosphere/thermosphere system. Literature abound on case studies of low latitude ionospheric variations during geomagnetic storms in the African sector (Adebesin et al 2013;Adebiyi et al 2014;Olawepo and Adeniyi, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of sunspot cycle ascending and descending phases asymmetry in equatorial ionospheric variability

Ikubanni

Adeniyi

Adebesin

et al. 2019

Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ionospheric variation from the climatological mean has been extensively studied due to its effect on ionospheric high frequency radio propagation. This work reports foF2 variation at Ouagadougou (geogr. 12 o N, 1.8 o W, dip ∼3°), complementing works that have been done at this station. Nighttime variability is higher than daytime and varies with season but with no consistent pattern. There is an earlier post-midnight peak variability in June solstice (around 0100LT) and occurred between 0400 and 0500LT in other seasons for all sunspot classifications except solar maxima. In this study, we have paid attention to features in the ascending/decending phase of the sunspot cycle and we observed that nighttime ionospheric variability may not always decrease with increasing sunspot number, particularly in the ascending phase. The mechanisms for the difference between observations in the ascending and descending phases could not be identified.

show abstract

Ionospheric response to magnetic activity at low and mid-latitude stations

Cited by 15 publications

References 28 publications

Ionospheric and Solar Wind Variation during Magnetic Storm Onset and Main Phase at Low- and Mid-latitudes

Ionospheric and Solar Wind Variation during Magnetic Storm Onset and Main Phase at Low- and Mid-latitudes

Potential of Regional Ionosphere Prediction Using a Long Short‐Term Memory Deep‐Learning Algorithm Specialized for Geomagnetic Storm Period

Dynamics of sunspot cycle ascending and descending phases asymmetry in equatorial ionospheric variability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About