Articles | Volume 40, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-107-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-107-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Regular paper
| 
21 Feb 2022
Regular paper |
| 21 Feb 2022
| 21 Feb 2022
Spatio-temporal development of large-scale auroral electrojet currents relative to substorm onsets
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Ari Viljanen
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Liisa Juusola
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Kirsti Kauristie
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Related authors
Mirjam Kellinsalmi, Ari Viljanen, Liisa Juusola, and Sebastian Käki
Ann. Geophys., 40, 545–562, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-545-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-545-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Eruptions from the Sun can pose a hazard to Earth's power grids via, e.g., geomagnetically induced currents (GICs). We study magnetic measurements from Fennoscandia to find ways to understand and forecast GIC. We find that the direction of the time derivative of the magnetic field has a short
reset time, about 2 min. We conclude that this result gives insight on the current systems high in Earth’s atmosphere, which are the main driver behind the time derivative’s behavior and GIC formation.
Abiyot Bires Workayehu, Minna Palmroth, Maxime Grandin, Liisa Juusola, Markku Alho, Ivan Zaitsev, Venla Koikkalainen, Konstantinos Horaites, Yann Pfau-Kempf, Urs Ganse, Markus Battarbee, and Jonas Suni
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2282, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2282, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the ionospheric signatures of BBFs in the magnetotail utilising a global 6D hybrid-Vlasov simulation coupled with an ionospheric model. We analyse changes in the magnitudes of ionospheric observables and use them as the ionospheric manifestations of bursty bulk flows. Our results reveal that reconnection-driven BBF induce vortices that generate FACs, which map to the ionosphere with distinct east-west alignment and exhibit a characteristic westward drift.
Venla Koikkalainen, Maxime Grandin, Emilia Kilpua, Abiyot Workayehu, Ivan Zaitsev, Liisa Juusola, Shi Tao, Markku Alho, Lauri Pänkäläinen, Giulia Cozzani, Konstantinos Horaites, Jonas Suni, Yann Pfau-Kempf, Urs Ganse, and Minna Palmroth
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2265, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2265, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We use a numerical simulation to study phenomena that occur between the Earth’s dipolar magnetic field and the nightside of near-Earth space. We observe the formation of large-scale vortex flows with scales of several Earth radii. On the ionospheric grid of the simulation we find that the field-aligned currents formed in the simulation reflect the vortex flow in the transition region. The main finding is that the vortex flow is a result of a combination of flow dynamics and a plasma instability.
Liisa Juusola, Ilkka Virtanen, Spencer Mark Hatch, Heikki Vanhamäki, Maxime Grandin, Noora Partamies, Urs Ganse, Ilja Honkonen, Abiyot Workayehu, Antti Kero, and Minna Palmroth
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2394, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2394, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Key properties of the ionospheric electrodynamics are electric fields, currents, and conductances. They provide a window to the vast and distant near-Earth space, cause Joule heating that affect satellite orbits, and drive geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) in technological conductor networks. We have developed a new method for solving the key properties of ionospheric electrodynamics from ground-based magnetic field observations.
Liisa Juusola, Heikki Vanhamäki, Elena Marshalko, Mikhail Kruglyakov, and Ari Viljanen
Ann. Geophys., 43, 271–301, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-43-271-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-43-271-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Interaction between the magnetic field of the rapidly varying electric currents in space and the conducting ground produces an electric field at the Earth's surface. This geoelectric field drives geomagnetically induced currents in technological conductor networks, which can affect the performance of critical ground infrastructure such as electric power transmission grids. We have developed a new method suitable for monitoring the geoelectric field based on ground magnetic field observations.
Urs Ganse, Yann Pfau-Kempf, Hongyang Zhou, Liisa Juusola, Abiyot Workayehu, Fasil Kebede, Konstantinos Papadakis, Maxime Grandin, Markku Alho, Markus Battarbee, Maxime Dubart, Leo Kotipalo, Arnaud Lalagüe, Jonas Suni, Konstantinos Horaites, and Minna Palmroth
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 511–527, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-511-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-511-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Vlasiator is a kinetic space plasma model that simulates the behavior of plasma, solar wind and magnetic fields in near-Earth space. So far, these simulations have been run without any interaction with the ionosphere, the uppermost layer of Earth's atmosphere. In this paper, we present the new methods that add an ionospheric electrodynamics model to Vlasiator, coupling it with the existing methods and presenting new simulation results of how space plasma and Earth's ionosphere interact.
Noora Partamies, Bas Dol, Vincent Teissier, Liisa Juusola, Mikko Syrjäsuo, and Hjalmar Mulders
Ann. Geophys., 42, 103–115, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-42-103-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-42-103-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Auroral imaging produces large amounts of image data that can no longer be analyzed by visual inspection. Thus, every step towards automatic analysis tools is crucial. Previously supervised learning methods have been used in auroral physics, with a human expert providing ground truth. However, this ground truth is debatable. We present an unsupervised learning method, which shows promising results in detecting auroral breakups in the all-sky image data.
Mizuki Fukizawa, Yoshimasa Tanaka, Yasunobu Ogawa, Keisuke Hosokawa, Tero Raita, and Kirsti Kauristie
Ann. Geophys., 41, 511–528, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-511-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-511-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We use computed tomography to reconstruct the three-dimensional distributions of the Hall and Pedersen conductivities of pulsating auroras, a key research target for understanding the magnetosphere–ionosphere coupling process. It is suggested that the high-energy electron precipitation associated with pulsating auroras may have a greater impact on the closure of field-aligned currents in the ionosphere than has been previously reported.
Liisa Juusola, Ari Viljanen, Noora Partamies, Heikki Vanhamäki, Mirjam Kellinsalmi, and Simon Walker
Ann. Geophys., 41, 483–510, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-483-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-483-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
At times when auroras erupt on the sky, the magnetic field surrounding the Earth undergoes rapid changes. On the ground, these changes can induce harmful electric currents in technological conductor networks, such as powerlines. We have used magnetic field observations from northern Europe during 28 such events and found consistent behavior that can help to understand, and thus predict, the processes that drive auroras and geomagnetically induced currents.
Liisa Juusola, Ari Viljanen, Andrew P. Dimmock, Mirjam Kellinsalmi, Audrey Schillings, and James M. Weygand
Ann. Geophys., 41, 13–37, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-13-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-13-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We have examined events during which the measured magnetic field on the ground changes very rapidly, causing a risk to technological conductor networks. According to our results, such events occur when strong electric currents in the ionosphere at 100 km altitude are abruptly modified by sudden compression or expansion of the magnetospheric magnetic field farther in space.
Daniel K. Whiter, Noora Partamies, Björn Gustavsson, and Kirsti Kauristie
Ann. Geophys., 41, 1–12, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-1-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-1-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We measured the height of green and blue aurorae using thousands of camera images recorded over a 7-year period. Both colours are typically brightest at about 114 km altitude. When they peak at higher altitudes the blue aurora is usually higher than the green aurora. This information will help other studies which need an estimate of the auroral height. We used a computer model to explain our observations and to investigate how the green aurora is produced.
Noora Partamies, Daniel Whiter, Kirsti Kauristie, and Stefano Massetti
Ann. Geophys., 40, 605–618, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-605-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-605-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the local time behaviour of auroral structures and emission height. Data are collected from the Fennoscandian Lapland and Svalbard latitutes from 7 identical auroral all-sky cameras over about 1 solar cycle. The typical peak emission height of the green aurora varies from 110 km on the nightside to about 118 km in the morning over Lapland but stays systematically higher over Svalbard. During fast solar wind, nightside emission heights are 5 km lower than during slow solar wind.
Mirjam Kellinsalmi, Ari Viljanen, Liisa Juusola, and Sebastian Käki
Ann. Geophys., 40, 545–562, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-545-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-545-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Eruptions from the Sun can pose a hazard to Earth's power grids via, e.g., geomagnetically induced currents (GICs). We study magnetic measurements from Fennoscandia to find ways to understand and forecast GIC. We find that the direction of the time derivative of the magnetic field has a short
reset time, about 2 min. We conclude that this result gives insight on the current systems high in Earth’s atmosphere, which are the main driver behind the time derivative’s behavior and GIC formation.
Mizuki Fukizawa, Takeshi Sakanoi, Yoshimasa Tanaka, Yasunobu Ogawa, Keisuke Hosokawa, Björn Gustavsson, Kirsti Kauristie, Alexander Kozlovsky, Tero Raita, Urban Brändström, and Tima Sergienko
Ann. Geophys., 40, 475–484, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-475-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-475-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The pulsating auroral generation mechanism has been investigated by observing precipitating electrons using rockets or satellites. However, it is difficult for such observations to distinguish temporal changes from spatial ones. In this study, we reconstructed the horizontal 2-D distribution of precipitating electrons using only auroral images. The 3-D aurora structure was also reconstructed. We found that there were both spatial and temporal changes in the precipitating electron energy.
Liisa Juusola, Heikki Vanhamäki, Ari Viljanen, and Maxim Smirnov
Ann. Geophys., 38, 983–998, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-38-983-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-38-983-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Rapid variations of the magnetic field measured on the ground can be used to estimate space weather risks to power grids, but forecasting the variations remains a challenge. We show that part of this problem stems from the fact that, in addition to electric currents in space, the magnetic field variations are strongly affected by underground electric currents. We suggest that separating the measured field into its space and underground parts could improve our understanding of space weather.
Cited articles
Anderson, B., Takahashi, K., Kamei, T., Waters, C., and Toth, B.: Birkeland
current system key parameters derived from Iridium observations: Method and
initial validation results, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 107, 1079, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000080, 2002. a
Anderson, B., Korth, H., Waters, C., Green, D., Merkin, V., Barnes, R., and
Dyrud, L.: Development of large-scale Birkeland currents determined from the
Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 3017–3025, 2014. a
Anderson, B. J., Takahashi, K., and Toth, B. A.: Sensing global Birkeland
currents with Iridium® engineering magnetometer data,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 4045–4048, 2000. a
Anderson, B. J., Olson, C. N., Korth, H., Barnes, R. J., Waters, C. L., and
Vines, S. K.: Temporal and spatial development of global Birkeland currents,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 123, 4785–4808, 2018. a
Bonnevier, B., Boström, R., and Rostoker, G.: A three-dimensional model
current system for polar magnetic substorms, J. Geophys. Res.,
75, 107–122, 1970. a
Chernick, M. R. and LaBudde, R. A.: An introduction to bootstrap methods with applications to R, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, ISBN 978-0470467046, 2011. a
Coxon, J. C., Rae, I. J., Forsyth, C., Jackman, C. M., Fear, R. C., and
Anderson, B. J.: Birkeland currents during substorms: Statistical evidence
for intensification of Regions 1 and 2 currents after onset and a localized
signature of auroral dimming, J. Geophys. Res.-Space,
122, 6455–6468, 2017. a
Coxon, J. C., Milan, S. E., and Anderson, B. J.: A review of Birkeland current
research using AMPERE, Electric currents in geospace and beyond, edited by: Keiling, A., Marghitu, O., and Wheatland, M., American Geophysical Union and John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 257–278, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119324522.ch16, 2018. a
Davis, T. N. and Sugiura, M.: Auroral electrojet activity index AE and its
universal time variations, J. Geophys. Res., 71, 785–801,
1966. a
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. J.: An introduction to the bootstrap, Monographs on statistics and applied probability, Vol. 57, Chapman & Hall, New York, ISBN 0-412-04231-2, 1993. a
Emmert, J. T., Richmond, A. D., and Drob, D. P.: A computationally compact representation of Magnetic-Apex and Quasi-Dipole coordinates with smooth base vectors, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 115, A08322,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015326, 2010. a
Forsyth, C., Rae, I., Coxon, J., Freeman, M., Jackman, C., Gjerloev, J., and
Fazakerley, A.: A new technique for determining Substorm Onsets and Phases
from Indices of the Electrojet (SOPHIE), J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 120, 10592–10606, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021343, 2015. a, b
Freeman, M. and Morley, S.: A minimal substorm model that explains the observed
statistical distribution of times between substorms, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L12807, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019989, 2004. a
Gjerloev, J. and Hoffman, R.: Currents in auroral substorms, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 107, 1163, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000194, 2002. a, b, c, d
Gjerloev, J., Hoffman, R., Sigwarth, J., and Frank, L.: Statistical description
of the bulge-type auroral substorm in the far ultraviolet, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 112, A07213, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JA012189, 2007. a, b, c, d
Horning, B., McPherron, R., and Jackson, D.: Application of linear inverse
theory to a line current model of substorm current systems, J.
Geophys. Res., 79, 5202–5210, 1974. a
Juusola, L., Amm, O., and Viljanen, A.: One-dimensional spherical elementary
current systems and their use for determining ionospheric currents from
satellite measurements, Earth Planets Space, 58, 667–678,
https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03351964, 2006. a
Juusola, L., Amm, O., Kauristie, K., and Viljanen, A.: A model for estimating the relation between the Hall to Pedersen conductance ratio and ground magnetic data derived from CHAMP satellite statistics, Ann. Geophys., 25, 721–736, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-25-721-2007, 2007. a
Juusola, L., Kauristie, K., Vanhamäki, H., Aikio, A., and van de Kamp, M.:
Comparison of auroral ionospheric and field-aligned currents derived from
Swarm and ground magnetic field measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 121, 9256–9283, 2016. a
Juusola, L., Vanhamäki, H., Viljanen, A., and Smirnov, M.: Induced currents due to 3D ground conductivity play a major role in the interpretation of geomagnetic variations, Ann. Geophys., 38, 983–998, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-38-983-2020, 2020. a
Kamide, Y. and Akasofu, S.-I.: The auroral electrojet and global auroral
features, J. Geophys. Res., 80, 3585–3602, 1975. a
Kervalishvili, G., Rauberg, J., Kauristie, K., Viljanen, A., and Juusola, L.:
Swarm-AEBS Description of the Processing Algorithm,
https://earth.esa.int/eogateway/documents/20142/37627/Swarm-AEBS-processing-algorithm-description.pdf, last
access: 5 May 2020 (data available at: https://swarm-diss.eo.esa.int/, last access: 22 June 2021). a, b, c
Koskinen, H. E. and Pulkkinen, T. I.: Midnight velocity shear zone and the
concept of Harang discontinuity, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 100, 9539–9547, 1995. a
Liu, J., Angelopoulos, V., Chu, X., Zhou, X.-Z., and Yue, C.: Substorm current
wedge composition by wedgelets, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 1669–1676,
2015. a
McPherron, R. L., Russell, C. T., and Aubry, M. P.: Satellite studies of
magnetospheric substorms on August 15, 1968: 9. Phenomenological model for
substorms, J. Geophys. Res., 78, 3131–3149, 1973. a
Merayo, J. M., Jørgensen, J. L., Friis-Christensen, E., Brauer, P., Primdahl, F., Jørgensen, P. S., Allin, T. H., and Denver, T.: The Swarm magnetometry package, in: Small Satellites for Earth Observation Small satellites for Earth observation, edited by: Sandau, R., Röser, H. P., and Valenzuela, A., 143–151, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6943-7_13, 2008. a
Newell, P. and Gjerloev, J.: Evaluation of SuperMAG auroral electrojet indices
as indicators of substorms and auroral power, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 116, A12211, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JA016779, 2011a (data available at: https://supermag.jhuapl.edu/substorms/, last access: 22 June 2021). a, b, c, d, e, f
Newell, P. and Gjerloev, J.: Substorm and magnetosphere characteristic scales
inferred from the SuperMAG auroral electrojet indices, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 116, A12232, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JA016936, 2011b. a, b, c, d
Nishimura, Y., Lyons, L. R., Gabrielse, C., Weygand, J. M., Donovan, E., and
Angelopoulos, V.: Relative contributions of large-scale and wedgelet currents
in the substorm current wedge, Earth Planets Space, 72, 106, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-020-01234-x, 2020. a
Ohtani, S. and Gjerloev, J. W.: Is the substorm current wedge an ensemble of
wedgelets?: Revisit to midlatitude positive bays, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 125, e2020JA027902, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA027902, 2020. a
Ohtani, S., Gjerloev, J., McWilliams, K., Ruohoniemi, J., and Frey, H.:
Simultaneous Development of Multiple Auroral Substorms: Double Auroral Bulge
Formation, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 126,
e2020JA028883, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028883, 2021a. a
Ohtani, S., Imajo, S., Nakamizo, A., and Gjerloev, J. W.: Globally Correlated
Ground Magnetic Disturbances During Substorms, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 126, e2020JA028599, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028599, 2021b. a
Olsen, N.: A new tool for determining ionospheric currents from magnetic
satellite data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 3635–3638, 1996. a
Orr, L., Chapman, S., Gjerloev, J., and Guo, W.: Network community structure of
substorms using SuperMAG magnetometers, Nat. Commun., 12, 1842, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22112-4,
2021. a
Pirjola, R.: Geomagnetically induced currents during magnetic storms, IEEE
T. Plasma Sci., 28, 1867–1873, 2000. a
Pirjola, R.: Review on the calculation of surface electric and magnetic fields
and of geomagnetically induced currents in ground-based technological
systems, Surv. Geophys., 23, 71–90, 2002. a
Reigber, C., Lühr, H., and Schwintzer, P.: CHAMP mission status, Adv. Space Res., 30, 129–134, 2002. a
Richmond, A. D.: Ionospheric electrodynamics using magnetic apex coordinates,
J. Geomagn. Geoelectr., 47, 191–212, 1995. a
Untiedt, J. and Baumjohann, U. W.: Studies of polar current systems using the
IMS Scandinavian magnetometer array, Space Sci. Rev., 63, 245–390,
1993. a
Vanhamäki, H. and Juusola, L.: Introduction to Spherical Elementary Current
Systems, in: Ionospheric Multi-Spacecraft Analysis Tools: Approaches for
Deriving Ionospheric Parameters, edited by: Dunlop, M. W. and Lühr, H.,
5–33, Springer International Publishing, Cham,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26732-2_2, 2020. a
Vanhamäki, H., Amm, O., and Viljanen, A.: One-dimensional upward continuation
of the ground magnetic field disturbance using spherical elementary current
systems, Earth Planets Space, 55, 613–625, https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352468,
2003. a, b
Viljanen, A., Tanskanen, E. I., and Pulkkinen, A.: Relation between substorm characteristics and rapid temporal variations of the ground magnetic field, Ann. Geophys., 24, 725–733, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-24-725-2006, 2006. a
Waters, C., Anderson, B., and Liou, K.: Estimation of global field aligned
currents using the Iridium® system magnetometer data,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2165–2168, 2001. a
Waters, C. L., Anderson, B. J., Greenwald, R. A., Barnes, R. J., and Ruohoniemi, J. M.: High-latitude poynting flux from combined Iridium and SuperDARN data, Ann. Geophys., 22, 2861–2875, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-22-2861-2004, 2004.
a
Waters, C. L., Anderson, B., Green, D., Korth, H., Barnes, R., and
Vanhamäki, H.: Science data products for AMPERE, in: Ionospheric
Multi-Spacecraft Analysis Tools, ISSI Scientific Report Series, Vol. 17, edited by: Dunlop, M. W. and Lühr, H., 141–165, Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26732-2_7, 2020. a
Workayehu, A., Vanhamäki, H., and Aikio, A.: Field-Aligned and Horizontal
Currents in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres From the Swarm Satellite,
J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 124, 7231–7246, 2019. a
Workayehu, A., Vanhamäki, H., and Aikio, A.: Seasonal Effect on Hemispheric
Asymmetry in Ionospheric Horizontal and Field-Aligned Currents, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 125, e2020JA028051, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028051, 2020. a
Xiong, C., Lühr, H., Wang, H., and Johnsen, M. G.: Determining the boundaries of the auroral oval from CHAMP field-aligned current signatures – Part 1, Ann. Geophys., 32, 609–622, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-32-609-2014, 2014. a
Short summary
During auroral substorms, the ionospheric electric currents change rapidly, and a large amount of energy is dissipated. We combine ionospheric current data derived from the Swarm satellite mission with the substorm database from the SuperMAG ground magnetometer network. We obtain statistics of the strength and location of the currents relative to the substorm onset. Our results show that low-earth orbit satellites give a coherent picture of the main features in the substorm current system.
During auroral substorms, the ionospheric electric currents change rapidly, and a large amount...
