Storm and Substorm Causes and Effects at Midlatitude Location for the St. Patrick's 2013 and 2015 Events

Guerrero, Antonio José Moreno; Palacios, J.; Rodríguez-Bouza, M.; Rodríguez-Bilbao, I.; Aran, A.; Cid, C.; Herráiz, M.; Sáiz, E.; Rodríguez‐Caderot, G.; Cerrato, Y.

doi:10.1002/2017ja024224

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An alternative approach to the use of SYM − H can be based on relationship given in Burton et al () that relates the effect on the ring current with the energy input. This approach has been recently employed by Guerrero et al () to analyze space weather effects for the St. Patrick's Day storms in 2013 and 2015.…”

Section: Data Set and Data Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multivariable Comprehensive Analysis of Two Great Geomagnetic Storms of 2015

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the year 2015 two great geomagnetic storms (Dst < À200 nT) occurred on 17 March and 22 June. These two geomagnetic storms have similarities. They occurred during the same decreasing phase of the sunspot cycle 24. The interplanetary and magnetospheric environments were calm before the beginning of the storms. Both events were due to Coronal Mass Ejections and High-Speed Solar Wind. Variations of the solar wind velocity and the Bz component of the interplanetary magnetic field were also similar. Two key features that are different for these storms are UT time of the beginning (04:45 UT for 17 March and 18:33 UT for 22 June) and season (equinox and solstice). The comparison of the impact of the storms on the Earth ionosphere and magnetosphere has been performed using diverse parameters including global ionospheric maps of vertical total electron content, data from individual Global Navigation Satellite System receivers, ionosondes, magnetometers, and instruments from different space missions. Visualizing global ionospheric map data as the difference of vertical total electron content between consecutive days allowed understanding better the effect of the storms as a function of time of the beginning of the storm and of the season. It is shown that the presence or absence of scintillations in Global Navigation Satellite System signals during these two storms in African longitude sector is clearly related to the local time at a given station at the beginning of the storm.In addition to many data sets scientists also have access to modeling results that allow them interpreting their observations. Theoretical work carried out by Fuller-Rowell et al. (1994) defined the response of the thermosphere during a magnetic storm due to thermal expansion of the atmosphere with transport of KASHCHEYEV ET AL. 5000

show abstract

Section: Data Set and Data Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multivariable Comprehensive Analysis of Two Great Geomagnetic Storms of 2015

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interplanetary parameters and solar wind conditions associated with the 17–18 March 2015 storm have been presented by several researchers (e.g., Alberti et al, ; Guerrero et al, ; Marubashi et al, ; Verkhoglyadova et al, ; Wu et al, ). The IMF B Z variation during 16–19 March 2015 (Figure c) shows two southward turnings of IMF B Z with the second one strong (< −15 nT) and of longer duration (>10 hr).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The interplanetary parameters and solar wind conditions associated with the 17-18 March 2015 storm have been presented by several researchers (e.g., Alberti et al, 2017;Guerrero et al, 2017;Marubashi et al, 2016;Verkhoglyadova et al, 2016;Wu et al, 2016). (1) There occurred an intense storm on 15 July 2012 that developed in two steps with the first step (main phase onset) commencing at about 06:40 UT and giving a minimum Dst index of −128 nT at~09 UT on 15 July.…”

Section: The St Patrick's Day Storm Of March 2015mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ionospheric Response to the St. Patrick's Day Space Weather Events in March 2012, 2013, and 2015 at Southern Low and Middle Latitudes

Kumar

2019

JGR Space Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The changes in critical frequency of the F2 layer (foF2) and foF2 deviation (ΔfoF2) have been determined for three geomagnetic storms in March of the years 2012, 2013, and 2015 at low‐latitude stations, Darwin (geomag. lat. 21.96°S) and Townsville (28.95°S), and midlatitude stations, Brisbane (36.73°S), Canberra (45.65°S), and Hobart (54.17°S). The moderate storm during 15–16 March 2012 (Dst = −87 nT) showed a decrease in foF2 at midlatitude and no effect at low‐latitude stations. For the intense storm of 17–18 March 2013 (Dst = −132 nT) and the super storm of 17–18 March 2015 (Dst = −222 nT), some middle‐ to low‐latitude stations showed a short‐duration increase in foF2, but all stations showed a long‐duration decrease in foF2 during the recovery phases with ΔfoF2% varying from 26% (Darwin) to 36.6% at Hobart for the March 2013 storm and above 40% for the March 2015 storm at all of the stations. Short‐duration (~2–4 hr) increase in foF2 seems to be associated with the prompt penetrating electric fields. Long‐duration (>6 hr) decrease in foF2 is mainly accounted to the decrease in thermospheric O/N2 density ratio because of storm‐induced high‐latitude circulation of gas with depleted O/N2 density ratio to lower latitudes and partly due to disturbance dynamo electric fields. A comparison of ionosonde given foF2 for equinoctial storms (March 2013 and 2015) with similar strength Southern Hemisphere winter storms (July 2012 and June 2015) has been made with the IRI‐2016 model foF2 for Darwin, Brisbane, and Canberra stations.

show abstract

“…The bottom two frames summarize the magnetospheric response via the SYM‐H and AE geomagnetic indexes. As this storm is widely studied (e.g., Carter et al, ; Divett et al, ; Guerrero et al, ; Lotz et al, ; Ngwira et al, ), it provides ample opportunity for further validation outside of ground magnetic perturbations. With an SYM‐H minimum at −234 nT, it would become the second strongest storm in the validation suite.…”

Section: Recommendations For Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for Next‐Generation Ground Magnetic Perturbation Validation

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data‐model validation of ground magnetic perturbation forecasts, specifically of the time rate of change of surface magnetic field, dB/dt, is a critical task for model development and for mitigation of geomagnetically induced current effects. While a current, community‐accepted standard for dB/dt validation exists (Pulkkinen et al., 2013), it has several limitations that prevent more complete understanding of model capability. This work presents recommendations from the International Forum for Space Weather Capabilities Assessment Ground Magnetic Perturbation Working Team for creating a next‐generation validation suite. Four recommendations are made to address the existing suite: greatly expand the number of ground observatories used, expand the number of events included in the suite from six to eight, generate metrics as a function of magnetic local time, and generate metrics as a function of activity type. For each of these, implementation details are explored. Limitations and future considerations are also discussed.

show abstract

Storm and Substorm Causes and Effects at Midlatitude Location for the St. Patrick's 2013 and 2015 Events

Cited by 10 publications

References 92 publications

Multivariable Comprehensive Analysis of Two Great Geomagnetic Storms of 2015

Multivariable Comprehensive Analysis of Two Great Geomagnetic Storms of 2015

Ionospheric Response to the St. Patrick's Day Space Weather Events in March 2012, 2013, and 2015 at Southern Low and Middle Latitudes

Recommendations for Next‐Generation Ground Magnetic Perturbation Validation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About