Bibliography

Solar and interplanetary events that drove two CIR-related geomagnetic storms of 1 June 2013 and 7 October 2015, and their ionospheric responses at the American and African equatorial ionization Anomaly regions

This study investigates the sequence of solar and interplanetary events that drove the 1 June 2013 and October 2015 geomagnetic storms and how the American (68°–78oE) and African (32°–42oE) Equatorial Ionization Anomaly (EIA) regions responded to them. We constructed the EIA structures by using Total Electron Content (TEC) and ionospheric irregularities derived from Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers along with the study locations. We also analyzed disturbed time ionospheric electric field and model data alongside the GNSS data. The 1 June 2013 geomagnetic storm was driven by a combination of a weak CME and HSSs from solar coronal holes, while the 7 October 2015 storm was solely driven by HSSs. Storm-time hemispherical asymmetry in ionospheric TEC and irregularities distributions was consistently observed. Storm with minimum SYM-H value at day-side locations caused enhancement in plasma ionization and pole-ward movement of EIA crests, while storm with minimum SYM-H value at night-side locations caused reduction in plasma ionization and equator-ward movement of EIA crests. The phase of responses of the ionosphere to geomagnetic storms depends on the local time of storm’s onset and local time of the storm’s main phase minimum which also determine the orientation of Prompt Penetration Electric Field (PPEF). At storm’s onset time in the low latitude regions, the main storm-induced electric field is PPEF. Daytime eastward PPEF intensified plasma fountain to increase the EIA crests locations, while nighttime westward PPEF reversed plasma fountain to cause equator-ward collapse of the EIA crests. However, around the storm’s recovery phase, under southward turning of IMF Bz, depending on their orientations, PPEF and Disturbed Dynamo Electric Field (DDEF) collectively influenced low latitude ionosphere. Eastward PPEF at the Pre-Reversal Enhancement (PRE) time enhanced irregularities generation, while westward DDEF at PRE time inhibited irregularities generation. The season of storm’s occurrence is also a factor that dictates ionospheric response to a storm, for instance, the 7 October storm (SYM-H −124 nT) influenced the ionosphere more than the 1 June storm (SYM-H −137 nT). Both storms had long recovery phase. On pre-storm days, we observed stronger and well-developed EIA crests over the American sector than over the African sector.

Oyedokun, Oluwole; Amaechi, P.; Akala, A.; Simi, K.; Ogwala, Aghogho; Oyeyemi, E.;

Published by: Advances in Space Research      Published on: mar

YEAR: 2022     DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2021.12.027

geomagnetic storm; total electron content; Corotating Interacting Region; ionospheric irregularities

Responses of the Indian Equatorial Ionization Anomaly to two CME-induced geomagnetic storms during the peak phase of solar cycle 24

This work analyzes the geo-effectiveness of Coronal Mass Ejection- (CME-) induced storms by investigating the responses of ionospheric Vertical Total Electron Content (VTEC) and the Equatorial Ionization Anomaly (EIA) over the Indian sector to two storms. One of the storms occurred on February 19, 2014 (SYM-H: −120 nT), while the other occurred on June 23, 2015 (SYM-H: −204 nT). Both storms were driven by full halo CMEs. Global TEC maps were used to characterize VTEC variations during the storms. June 23, 2015 storm was characterized with stronger solar progenitors, right from its origin, although the VTEC response to the storm was not influenced by their strong progenitors. The CMEs that caused the selected storms are large (Halo CMEs). We inferred that irrespective of the strength of solar origin of a storm, the response of ionization distribution over equatorial and low-latitude regions to it depends on the season of storm occurrence, local time of the storm onset, and PPEF orientation. From the VTEC variations for the three Indian stations namely, Trivandrum (geographic latitude: 8.52°N, geographic longitude: 76.94°E, magnetic latitude: 0.37°N), Hyderabad (17.39°N, 78.49°E, 10.15°N) and Delhi (28.70°N, 77.10°E, 22.70°N), we observed that EIA disturbances were more prominent over Hyderabad than over Delhi. The February 19, 2014 storm was characterized by a localized EIA crest at latitude a little above Hyderabad, while in June 23, 2015 storm localized EIA crest was observed directly on Hyderabad. IRI-2016 model generally underestimated VTEC at the three Indian equatorial and low-latitude locations. Solar cycle 24 was characterized with low heliospheric pressure due to its weak polar field strength. The lower pressure allowed CMEs to expand greatly as they transit through space. As they expand, the strengths of the magnetic field inside them decrease, and such lower-strength magnetic fields cause geomagnetic storms that are less geoeffective, even when their solar/interplanetary progenitors are strong and healthy. This associated weak polar field strength of solar cycle 24 caused weak fountain effect with the attendant inability to exhibit storm-time super-fountain effect in the dayside of the equatorial/low-latitude regions.

Simi, K.; Akala, A.; Krishna, Siva; Amaechi, Paul; Ogwala, Aghogho; Ratnam, Venkata; Oyedokun, O.;

Published by: Advances in Space Research      Published on: oct

YEAR: 2021     DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2021.06.013

Coronal mass ejection; Disturbance dynamo electric field; geomagnetic storm; prompt penetration electric field; total electron content

Solar Origins of August 26, 2018 Geomagnetic Storm: Responses of the Interplanetary Medium and Equatorial/Low-Latitude Ionosphere to the Storm

This study investigates the solar origins of August 26, 2018 geomagnetic storm and the responses of the interplanetary medium and equatorial/low-latitude ionosphere to it. We used a multiinstrument approach, with observations right from the solar surface to the Earth. Our results showed that the G3 geomagnetic storm of August 26, 2018 was initiated by a solar filament eruption of August 20, 2018. The storm was driven by an aggregation of weak Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) transients and Corotating Interaction Regions/High Speed Streams (CIR/HSSs). The solar wind energy which got transferred into the magnetosphere drove electrical currents, that penetrated down into the ionosphere to produce weak Prompt Penetration Electric Field (PPEF) (0.3 mV/m). For this reason, during the storm, at daytime, plasma densities of the Equatorial Ionization Anomaly (EIA) crests were localized within the inner flank of ±15° magnetic latitude strip. We attributed this to the extreme quietness of year 2018. There was a clear hemispherical asymmetry, with higher Total Electron Content (TEC) in the northern hemisphere. The major determining factors of the ionospheric responses during the various phases of this storm were the local time of the storm s onset, local time of storm s minimum SYM-H, and changes in thermospheric O/N2.

Akala, A.; Oyedokun, O.; Amaechi, P.; Simi, K.; Ogwala, A.; Arowolo, O.;

Published by: Space Weather      Published on:

YEAR: 2021     DOI: 10.1029/2021SW002734

Ionospheric response to a geomagnetic storm during November 8--10, 2004

This paper investigates the response of the equatorial, and near equatorial, ionosphere to geomagnetic disturbances during the period November 8-10, 2004. Ionosonde data from Trivandrum (8.5\textdegreeN 77\textdegreeE and dip 0.5\textdegreeN) and SHAR (13.5\textdegreeN, 80.2\textdegreeE, dip \~5.5\textdegreeN), magnetic field data from Tirunelveli (8.7\textdegreeN, 76.9\textdegreeE, dip latitude 0.5\textdegreeS) and Alibag (18.64\textdegreeN, 72.87\textdegreeE), and GUVI O/N₂ data in the Indian longitude sector, are used for the study. The behavior of interplanetary parameters is also examined in conjunction with the ionospheric data. On 8 November, the EIA around noontime is not fully inhibited even though the electrojet strength an indicates inhibition of EIA due to a disturbance dynamo electric field effect. It is the enhanced O/N₂ over TRV and SHAR, with a larger increase over SHAR, which results in a larger (than expected) value of the EIA proxy parameter. On 9 November, the comparable values of f_oF₂ at TRV and SHAR around noon time is due to the combined effect of a weakened anomaly in the presence disturbance dynamo electric field effects leading to the EIA crest being near SHAR, and increased O/N₂ values at TRV and SHAR with a larger increase at TRV. On 10 November, the very strong values of the EIA proxy-SHAR parameter is attributed to the combined effects of prompt penetration electric field related modulations of EIA, and significant O/N₂ changes at the equatorial, and near equatorial, latitude. Thus, the study reveals the important role of storm-induced O/N₂ changes, along with prompt penetration electric fields and disturbance dynamo electric fields in modulating the ionization distribution in the equatorial ionization anomaly (EIA) region during this period.

Simi, K.; Manju, G.; Haridas, M.; Nayar, S.; Pant, Tarun; Alex, S.;

Published by: Earth, Planets and Space      Published on: 05/2013

YEAR: 2013     DOI: 10.5047/eps.2012.09.005

Equatorial Electrojet; Equatorial ionization anomaly; geomagnetic storm; O/N2 ratio