Daytime geomagnetic disturbances at high latitudes during a strong magnetic storm of June 21–23, 2015: The storm initial phase

The high-latitude geomagnetic effects of an unusually long initial phase of the largest magnetic storm (SymH ~–220 nT) in cycle 24 of the solar activity are considered. Three interplanetary shocks characterized by considerable solar wind density jumps (up to 50–60 cm^–3) at a low solar wind velocity (350–400 km/s) approached the Earth’s magnetosphere during the storm initial phase. The first two dynamic impacts did not result in the development of a magnetic storm, since the IMF Bz remained positive for a long time after these shocks, but they caused daytime polar substorms (magnetic bays) near the boundary between the closed and open magnetosphere. The magnetic field vector diagrams at high latitudes and the behaviour of high-latitude long-period geomagnetic pulsations (ipcl and vlp) made it possible to specify the dynamics of this boundary position. The spatiotemporal features of daytime polar substorms (the dayside polar electrojet, PE) caused by sudden changes in the solar wind dynamic pressure are discussed in detail, and the singularities of ionospheric convection in the polar cap are considered. It has been shown that the main phase of this two-stage storm started rapidly developing only when the third most intense shock approached the Earth against a background of large negative IMF Bz values (to–39 nT). It was concluded that the dynamics of convective vortices and the related restructing of the field-aligned currents can result in spatiotemporal fluctuations in the closing ionospheric currents that are registered on the Earth’s surface as bay-like magnetic disturbances.     

Characteristic Features of Solar Cosmic Rays in the 21st–24th Solar-Activity Cycles According to Data from Catalogs of Solar Proton Events

Geomagnetism and Aeronomy - Homogeneous series of solar cosmic-ray events for four solar-activity cycles against the background of decreased activity in cycles 23 and 24 are considered. The number...     

A review of: “Advances in geophysics,vol. 21”

Abstract

Edited by Barry Saltzman. Academic Press Inc. (London) Ltd., 1979. 432 pp. (527.20) (ISBN 0 12018821 X).     

Stationary magnetospheric convection on November 24, 1981. 1. A case study of “pressure gradient/minimum-B” auroral arc generation

We present two case studies in the night and evening sides of the auroral oval, based on plasma and field measurements made at low altitudes by the AUREOL-3 satellite, during a long period of stationary magnetospheric convection (SMC) on November 24, 1981. The basic feature of both oval crossings was an evident double oval pattern, including (1) a weak arc-type structure at the equatorial edge of the oval/polar edge of the diffuse auroral band, collocated with an upward field-aligned current (FAC) sheet of ≈1.0 μA m⁻², (2) an intermediate region of weaker precipitation within the oval, (3) a more intense auroral band at the polar oval boundary, and (4) polar diffuse auroral zone near the polar cap boundary. These measurements are compared with the published magnetospheric data during this SMC period, accumulated by Yahnin et al. and Sergeev et al., including a semi-empirical radial magnetic field profile B_Z in the near-Earth neutral sheet, with a minimum at about 10–14 R_E. Such a radial B_Z profile appears to be very similar to that assumed in the “minimum B/cross-tail line current” model by Galperin et al. (GVZ92) as the “root of the arc”, or the arc generic region. This model considers a FAC generator mechanism by Grad-Vasyliunas-Boström-Tverskoy operating in the region of a narrow magnetic field minimum in the near-Earth neutral sheet, together with the concept of ion non-adiabatic scattering in the “wall region”. The generated upward FAC branch of the double sheet current structure feeds the steady auroral arc/inverted-V at the equatorial border of the oval. When the semi-empirical B_Z profile is introduced in the GVZ92 model, a good agreement is found between the modelled current and the measured characteristics of the FACs associated with the equatorial arc. Thus the main predictions of the GVZ92 model concerning the “minimum-B” region are consistent with these data, while some small-scale features are not reproduced. Implications of the GVZ92 model are discussed, particularly concerning the necessary conditions for a substorm onset that were not fulfilled during the SMC period.     

The 2010–2012 eruption of Kizimen Volcano: The greatest output (from the data of remote-sensing observations) for eruptions in Kamchatka in the early 21st century part I. The November 11, 2010 to December 11, 2011 phase

This paper presents the results from the detailed analysis of aerial photographs and space images for the Kizimen area, which characterize the geologic and geomorphologic effects of the ongoing eruption over the 2010–2011 period. It is shown that the total volume (>0.5 km³) and total mass (>10⁹ t) of the discharged (resurgent plus juvenile) material makes this eruption the most productive in Kamchatka for the first 12 years of the 21st century. The dominant component (>90%) is juvenile material with andesitic composition. The pyroclastics (tephra, deposits of the juvenile pyroclastic avalanches and incandescent debris avalanches) comprise >0.3 km³and >0.45× 10⁹ t, the lava (a very thick block lava flow 3.052 km long and 2.163 km² in area) occupies about 0.195 km³ and 0.45 × 10⁹ t. With the exception of the tephra, which fell over an area of about 100000 km², the rest of the material was accumulated on the Kizimen cone and at its base. The mean discharge rate of juvenile ejecta was about 15 m³/s (29 t/s) for 13 months (November 11, 2010 to December 11, 2011). Appreciable changes also occurred at the near-summit part of the volcano’s cone.     

A review of: “A perspective of physics,vol. 3”

Abstract

Edited by Sir Harrie Massey. Gordon and Breach, New York, London, Paris, 1979. 354 pp. ($35.50 (ISBN 0 677 15970 6))     

Assessment of the possibility of using E. A. Ponomarev’s magnetospheric substorm model to analyze geomagnetic disturbances during the magnetic storms of December 14 and 15, 2006

Spatial distributions of pressure and fluxes of precipitating magnetospheric plasma particles were constructed for the strong magnetic storm of December 14 and 15, 2006. The calculations were performed using a model developed by E.A. Ponomarev. Geotail and ACE satellite data were used to specify realistic initial and boundary conditions. The model results were compared with the spatial distribution of the field of geomagnetic disturbances recorded by ground-based magnetic observatories during the storm. The results show that the model (in its current form) provides good agreement between latitudinal displacements of electron precipitations and auroral electrojets but fails to reflect their longitudinal structure. The model fails to yield the strong westward electrojet observed by all auroral zone observatories during the main phase of the magnetic storm.     

Effect of auroral electrojets and solar wind parameters on variations in the intensity of low-latitude geomagnetic disturbances and Dst during the extremely large magnetic storm of November 20–21, 2003

The effect of auroral electrojets on the variations in the low-latitude geomagnetic disturbances and Dst during a strong magnetic storm of November 20–21, 2003, with Dst ≈ ?472 nT has been studied based on the global magnetic observations. It has been indicated that the magnetospheric storm expansive phase with Δt ≈ 1–2 h results in positive low-latitude disturbances (ΔH) of the same duration and with an amplitude of ～ 1–2 h results in positive low-latitude disturbances (ΔH) of the same duration and with an amplitude of ～ 30–100 nT in the premidnight-dawn sector. A growth of negative low-latitude ΔH values and Dst is mainly caused by regular convection electrojets with Δt ≥ 10 h, the centers of which shift to latitudes of ～ 50°–55° during the storm development. It has been established that the maximal low-latitude values of the field ΔH component at 1800–2400 MLT are observed when the auroral luminosity equatorward boundary shifts maximally southward during an increase in the negative values of the IMF B _z component. It has been assumed that, during this storm, a magnetic field depression at low latitudes was mainly caused by an enhancement of the partially-ring current which closes through field-aligned currents into the ionosphere at the equatorward boundary of the auroral luminosity zone.     

Comment on the paper “The Relationship between Multifractal and Entropy Properties of Seismic Noise in Kamchatka and Irregularity of the Earth’s Rotation” by A.A. Lyubushin,G.N. Kopylova,and Yu.K. Serafimova

Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth - Abstract—In my comment on the paper by A.A. Lyubushin, G.N. Kopylova, and Yu.K. Serafimova, I focus on the problem of legitimacy of seismological data...     

Displacement of large-scale open solar magnetic fields from the zone of active longitudes and the heliospheric storm of November 3–10, 2004: 1. The field dynamics and solar activity

The dynamics of the large-scale open field and solar activity at the second stage of the MHD process, including the origination and disappearance of the four-sector structure during the decline phase of cycle 23 (the stage when the blocking field is displaced from the main zone of active longitudes), has been considered. Extremely fast changes in the scales of one of new sectors (from an extremely small sector (“singularity”) to a usual sector that originated after the uniform expansion (“explosion”) of singularity with a “kick” into the zone of active longitudes, westward motion of the MHD disturbance front in the direction of solar rotation, and formation of an active quasi-rigidly corotating sector boundary responsible for the heliospheric storm of November 2004) have been detected in the field dynamics. It has been indicated that a very powerful group of sunspots AR 10656 (which disappeared after the explosion) with an area of up to 1540 ppmh (part per million hemisphere), a considerable deficit of the external energy release, and zero geoeffectiveness in spite of the closeness to the Earth helioprojection existed within singularity. It has been assumed that the energy escaped from this group with effort owing to the interaction between coronal ejections and narrow sector walls (singularity), and a considerable part of the energy was released in the outer layers of the convective zone, as a result of which singularity exploded and this explosion was accompanied by the above effects in the large-scale field and solar activity.     

Reply to the Comment by V.A. Saltykov on the Paper “The Relationship between Multifractal and Entropy Properties of Seismic Noise in Kamchatka and Irregularity of the Earth’s Rotation” by A.A. Lyubushin,G.N. Kopylova,and Yu.K. Serafimova

Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth -     

A reviews of: “Theory of stellar pulsation”, “Nonradial oscillations of stars”, and “Nonradial and nonlinear stellar pulsation,proceedings of a workshop in Tucson,Arizona, March 12–16, 1979”

Abstract

By John P. Cox. Princeton University Press, 1980. xiv+380 pp. (Hard cover £40; paperback £13.50). (ISBN Hard cover 0691 08252 9, Paperback 0 691 08253 7.)

By Wasaburo Unno, Yoji Osaki, Hiroyasu Ando and Hiromoto Shibihashi. University of Tokyo Press, 1979. ix + 323 pp. (¥5800) (ISBN 0 86008 258 X.)

Edited by H. A. Hill and W. Dziembowski. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Heidelberg, New York, 1980. viii+497 pp. (Soft cover DM57; approx $33.70 (ISBN 3 54009994 8 and 0 387 09994 8.)     

Displacement of large-scale open solar magnetic fields from the zone of active longitudes and the heliospheric storm of November 3–10, 2004: 2. “Explosion” of singularity and dynamics of sunspot formation and energy release

A more detailed scenario of one stage (August–November 2004) of the quasibiennial MHD process “Origination ... and dissipation of the four-sector structure of the solar magnetic field” during the decline phase of cycle 23 has been constructed. It has been indicated that the following working hypothesis on the propagation of an MHD disturbance westward (in the direction of solar rotation) and eastward (toward the zone of active longitudes) with the displacement of the large-scale open solar magnetic field (LOSMF) from this zone can be constructed based on LOSMF model representations and data on sunspot formation, flares, active filaments, and coronal ejections as well as on the estimated contribution of sporadic energy release to the flare luminosity and kinetic energy of ejections: (1) The “explosion” of the LOSMF singularity and the formation in the explosion zone of an anemone active region (AR), which produced the satellite sunspot formation that continued west and east of the “anemone,” represented a powerful and energy-intensive source of MHD processes at this stage. (2) This resulted in the origination of two “governing” large-scale MHD processes, which regulated various usual manifestations of solar activity: the fast LOSMF along the neutral line in the solar atmosphere, strongly affecting the zone of active longitudes, and the slow LOSMF in the outer layers of the convection zone. The fronts of these processes were identified by powerful (about 10³¹ erg) coronal ejections. (3) The collision of a wave reflected from the zone of active longitudes with the eastern front of the hydromagnetic impulse of the convection zone resulted in an increase in LOSMF magnetic fluxes, origination of an active sector boundary in the zone of active longitudes, shear-convergent motions, and generation and destabilization of the flare-productive AR 10696 responsible for the heliospheric storm of November 3–10, 2004.     

A review of: “The earth: 1 the upper atmosphere,ionosphere and magnetosphere”

Abstract

Edited by Charlotte W. Gordon, V. Canuto and W. Ian Axford, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 412 pp., $63.00 ($35.00). (ISBN O 677 16100 X.) 1978.     

Commentary on “Earthquake Depths in the Crimea–Black Sea Region” by V.E. Kulchitsky,B.G. Pustovitenko and V.A. Svidlova

It is well known that the results of determining earthquake parameters depend to a large extent on data processing algorithms and velocity models of the seismic wave propagation medium used in solving hypocenter problems. In 1992, V.Yu. Burmin developed a hypocentric algorithm that minimizes the functional of distances between the points corresponding to the theoretical and observed travel times of seismic waves from an earthquake source to recording stations. The determination of the coordinates of earthquake hypocenters in this case is much more stable than for the commonly used minimization of the functional of discrepancies in the seismic wave arrival times at a station. Using this algorithm and the refined velocity model of the medium, V.Yu. Burmin and L.A. Shumlyanskaya reinterpreted the earthquake parameters for the Crimea–Black Sea region. The most important result of this reinterpretation was the conclusion about the occurrence of deep earthquakes with a source depth of more than 60 km in the region. This result contradicts the conventional beliefs about the seismicity of the region and therefore aroused strong criticism from experts directly involved in compiling the existing catalogs of regional earthquakes. These comments and criticisms are presented by V.E. Kulchitsky with coauthors in a work published in this issue of the journal. In the present paper, we analyze the comments in detail and respond. In particular, we show that the previously used methods of seismic data processing made it highly unlikely by default that deep earthquakes would appear in the results. As an example, we refer to the use of travel-time curves for depths down to 35 km. It is clear that deep earthquakes could not have been found with this approach.