scholarly journals New observations of electromagnetic harmonic ELF emissions in the ionosphere by the DEMETER satellite during large magnetic storms

2006 ◽  
Vol 111 (A8) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Parrot ◽  
A. Buzzi ◽  
O. Santolík ◽  
J. J. Berthelier ◽  
J. A. Sauvaud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Storms ◽  
Demeter Satellite

scholarly journals Correlation of very low and low frequency signal variations at mid-latitudes with magnetic activity and outer-zone particles

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (12) ◽  
pp. 1455-1462 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Rozhnoi ◽  
M. Solovieva ◽  
V. Fedun ◽  
M. Hayakawa ◽  
K. Schwingenschuh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Significant Influence ◽  
Energetic Particle ◽  
Far East ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Outer Zone ◽  
Magnetic Activity ◽  
Magnetic Storms ◽  
Frequency Signal ◽  
The Far East ◽  
Demeter Satellite

Abstract. The disturbances of very low and low frequency signals in the lower mid-latitude ionosphere caused by magnetic storms, proton bursts and relativistic electron fluxes are investigated on the basis of VLF–LF measurements obtained in the Far East and European networks. We have found that magnetic storm (−150 < Dst < −100 nT) influence is not strong on variations of VLF–LF signals. The anomalies with negative amplitude were registered during the main and recovery phases for several magnetic storms (mainly for three northernmost paths). The correlation between VLF–LF signals and geomagnetic activity is rather weak even for these paths (≈ 12–18%). Also, the correlation between magnetic activity and VLF signal variations recorded onboard the DEMETER satellite is not found. The significant influence of outer-zone particles (energetic particle sensor on board/Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) measurements) on the VLF–LF signal variations is found for almost half of the sub-ionospheric paths.

Models of the geomagnetic field and characteristics of magnetic storms

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-69
Author(s):  
O.I. Maksimenko ◽  
◽  
L.N. Yaremenko ◽  
O.Ya. Shenderovskaya ◽  
G.V. Melnyk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Geomagnetic Field ◽  
Magnetic Storms

Survey of Ring Current Composition During Magnetic Storms

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Grande ◽  
C. H. Perry ◽  
A. Hall ◽  
J. Fennell ◽  
B. Wilken
Keyword(s):  
Ring Current ◽  
Magnetic Storms

The Energetic Electron Response to Magnetic Storms: HEO Satellite Observations

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. F. Fennell ◽  
J. B. Blake ◽  
R. Friedel ◽  
S. Kanekal
Keyword(s):  
Energetic Electron ◽  
Magnetic Storms ◽  
Satellite Observations

scholarly journals Observation evidences of atmospheric Gravity Waves induced by seismic activity from analysis of subionospheric LF signal spectra

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 625-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Rozhnoi ◽  
M. Solovieva ◽  
O. Molchanov ◽  
P.-F. Biagi ◽  
M. Hayakawa
Keyword(s):  
Gravity Waves ◽  
Fresnel Zone ◽  
Signal Amplitude ◽  
Magnetic Storms ◽  
Frequency Range ◽  
Atmospheric Gravity Waves ◽  
Period Range ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Atmospheric Gravity ◽  
Large Earthquakes

Abstract. We analyze variations of the LF subionospheric signal amplitude and phase from JJY transmitter in Japan (F=40 kHz) received in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky station during seismically quiet and active periods including also periods of magnetic storms. After 20 s averaging, the frequency range of the analysis is 0.28–15 mHz that corresponds to the period range from 1 to 60 min. Changes in spectra of the LF signal perturbations are found several days before and after three large earthquakes, which happened in November 2004 (M=7.1), August 2005 (M=7.2) and November 2006 (M=8.2) inside the Fresnel zone of the Japan-Kamchatka wavepath. Comparing the perturbed and background spectra we have found the evident increase in spectral range 10–25 min that is in the compliance with theoretical estimations on lithosphere-ionosphere coupling by the Atmospheric Gravity Waves (T>6 min). Similar changes are not found for the periods of magnetic storms.

scholarly journals What Solar–Terrestrial Link Researchers Should Know about Interplanetary Drivers

Universe ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 138
Author(s):  
Yuri I. Yermolaev ◽  
Irina G. Lodkina ◽  
Lidia A. Dremukhina ◽  
Michael Y. Yermolaev ◽  
Alexander A. Khokhlachev
Keyword(s):  
Interplanetary Shock ◽  
Magnetic Storms ◽  
System Response ◽  
Ionospheric Disturbances ◽  
Atmosphere System ◽  
Compression Region ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Methodological Approaches ◽  
Composite Nature ◽  
Incorrect Data

One of the most promising methods of research in solar–terrestrial physics is the comparison of the responses of the magnetosphere–ionosphere–atmosphere system to various types of interplanetary disturbances (so-called “interplanetary drivers”). Numerous studies have shown that different types of drivers result in different reactions of the system for identical variations in the interplanetary magnetic field. In particular, the sheaths—compression regions before fast interplanetary CMEs (ICMEs)—have higher efficiency in terms of the generation of magnetic storms than ICMEs. The growing popularity of this method of research is accompanied by the growth of incorrect methodological approaches in such studies. These errors can be divided into four main classes: (i) using incorrect data with the identification of driver types published in other studies; (ii) using incorrect methods to identify the types of drivers and, as a result, misclassify the causes of magnetospheric-ionospheric disturbances; (iii) ignoring a frequent case with a complex, composite, nature of the driver (the presence of a sequence of several simple drivers) and matching the system response with only one of the drivers; for example, a magnetic storm is often generated by a sheath in front of ICME, although the authors consider these events to be a so-called “CME-induced” storm, rather than a “sheath-induced” storm; (iv) ignoring the compression regions before the fast CME in the case when there is no interplanetary shock (IS) in front of the compression region (“sheath without IS” or the so-called “lost driver”), although this type of driver generates about 10% of moderate and large magnetic storms. Possible ways of solving this problem are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document