Network of observations on the atmospheric electrical parameters during geomagnetic storm on 5 April 2010

Abstract

The effects of a geomagnetic storm on the variation of the atmospheric electric field over Maitri (70°45′S, 11°44′E), Dome C (75°06′S, 123°20′E), and Vostok (78°27′S, 106°52′E) Antarctic research stations are presented in this paper. For the first time, the paper reports the simultaneous observations of the atmospheric electric field/potential gradient (PG) over the three high‐latitude stations at the Southern Hemisphere, and its associated changes due to a substorm phenomenon. PG data obtained from these three stations under fair‐weather conditions on 5 April 2010 are analyzed. The duration of geomagnetic disturbance is classified into three intervals, which contains three consecutive substorms based on the magnetic records of the Maitri station. The substorm is directly related to an enhancement of the magnetospheric convective electric field at high latitude, generally controlled by the solar wind parameters. It is found that the variation in the amplitude of PG depends on the magnetic latitude during substorm onset. During the substorm expansion phase, when the convection cell is at overhead, PG is significantly enhanced due to the downward mapping of the ionospheric horizontal electric field. The present observation demonstrated the changes on PG due to the spatial extension of the convection cell from high latitudes up to middle latitudes.

Variation of atmospheric electric field measured at Vostok, Antarctica, during St. Patrick's Day storms on 24th solar cycle

“…On 17 March 2015, the relation between Vostok ΔPG and modeled overhead potential is highly positive during noon hours (10:00-15:00 UT) and degraded for morning and evening sectors. These observational inferences are highly consistent with earlier studies [Frank-Kamenetsky et al, 1999;Lukianova et al, 2011;Frank-Kamenetsky et al, 2012], which state that significant control of ionospheric convection pattern and its associated electric field (V sw × B) by IMF parameters is more efficient during noon hours (magnetic day Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 10.1002/2017JA024022 time) [Victor et al, 2016]. In addition, a statistical analysis using Vostok PG by Burns et al [2005Burns et al [ , 2012 was also reported that the standard error on the association between PG and overhead ionospheric potential (Weimer_96, Weimer_2001 and Weimer_01, and AL model) is less (<0.2 Vm À1 per kV) during 08:00-16:00 UT, where the lowest error was estimated near noon hours at Vostok.…”

“…This negative large-scale ionospheric electric field substantially superposed on Vostok PG. In this context, Victor et al [2016] observed the similar situation, where Vostok PG changes À33% (relative to the quiet time curve) when IMF B y < 0. However, the difference in magnitude of ΔPG to that of overhead potential is still noticeably high based on the linear relation [Burns et al, 2012].…”

“…Several studies have been devoted for analyzing PG variation during magnetically disturbed periods [Apsen et al, 1988;Michnowski, 1991] at middle-high latitude [Belova et al, 2001;Kleimenova et al, 2006Kleimenova et al, , 2010, highlatitude nearly conjugate stations [Frank-Kamenetsky et al, 2001, and auroral region Kozyreva et al, 2007;Victor et al, 2016]. There are few cases reported on the modulation of potential gradient by the IMF components (B z and B y ) [Michnowski, 1998;Frank-Kamenetsky et al, 2001] and fieldaligned currents [Michnowski, 1998;Morozov and Troshichev, 2008].…”

“…But most of the aforesaid work leads to the climatology of given problems rather than concentrating on the individual events. In which, Victor et al [2016] discussed the departure of the PG during three consecutive substorms followed by the severe geomagnetic storm (Kp > 7) from network of observation at Antarctica. They observed that the departure of PG to that of its quiet time pattern is due to the superposition of polar cap potential and suggested the link is highly pronounced on the polar cap region.…”

Extreme Magnetosphere‐Ionosphere‐Thermosphere Responses to the 5 April 2010 Supersubstorm

“…Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers at nightside high latitudes during this event detected large phase scintillation (>1 radian) with numerous cycle slips (Kinrade et al, 2012; Prikryl et al, 2011). In addition, there is ample community interest in this type of extreme event, and this event has received a particular attention for investigating extreme responses, including field‐aligned currents (FACs) (Anderson et al, 2017), ring current (Buzulukova et al, 2013; Keesee et al, 2014), and the ionosphere‐thermosphere system (Cander, 2016; Lu et al, 2014; Victor et al, 2016).…”