2014
DOI: 10.1186/s40623-014-0154-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reaction of electric and meteorological states of the near-ground atmosphere during a geomagnetic storm on 5 April 2010

Abstract: The effects of a geomagnetic storm on 5 April 2010 on electric parameters of the atmospheric near-ground layer in Kamchatka have been investigated. Three processes over the course of the storm were identified. Air electroconductivity began to decrease 4 h before the storm, and this lasted for 20 h. The storm's sudden commencement caused potential gradient oscillations with amplitudes up to 300 V/m. During the stages of the storm, a significant increase in the atmosphere ion content unipolarity coefficient occu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
(14 reference statements)
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It is of interest to note that Smirnov [] reported the variation of the atmospheric electric field measured at Kamchatka (52.9°N, 158.25°E; mag: 46°N) on 5 April 2010. He reported that a sharp PG enhancement was observed during our second interval (08:24–11:30 UT) and no further variations were addressed on account of this geomagnetic perturbation (Figure in the reference), because the magnetic perturbation during the second interval is considerably strong so that its magnetospheric field influence may penetrate up to the middle latitude, which in turn alters the PG.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is of interest to note that Smirnov [] reported the variation of the atmospheric electric field measured at Kamchatka (52.9°N, 158.25°E; mag: 46°N) on 5 April 2010. He reported that a sharp PG enhancement was observed during our second interval (08:24–11:30 UT) and no further variations were addressed on account of this geomagnetic perturbation (Figure in the reference), because the magnetic perturbation during the second interval is considerably strong so that its magnetospheric field influence may penetrate up to the middle latitude, which in turn alters the PG.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dolezalek (1992), citing Benndorf's calculations, stated that the PG values are representative if the distance between the measuring sensor and any field-distorting disturbance is five times the height of that disturbance or three times the height for thin obstacles such as poles. Our site meets these conditions; other stations have similar site characteristics (Kumar et al 2009;Piper and Bennett 2012;Smirnov 2014).…”
Section: Instrumentationmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Such forms of signals were excluded from the database of PG negative anomalies. Negative bays in PG measurements may also occur during magnetic storms [21]. The paper used local K-indexes of magnetic activity from Paratunka observatory, which is included in the Intermagnet network.…”
Section: Measurement Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%