Articles | Volume 41, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-13-2023
© Author(s) 2023. 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-41-13-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Regular paper
| 
11 Jan 2023
Regular paper |
| 11 Jan 2023
| 11 Jan 2023
Drivers of rapid geomagnetic variations at high latitudes
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Ari Viljanen
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Andrew P. Dimmock
Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden
Mirjam Kellinsalmi
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Audrey Schillings
Department of Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
James M. Weygand
Department of Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Related authors
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.
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.
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.
Sebastian Käki, Ari Viljanen, Liisa Juusola, and Kirsti Kauristie
Ann. Geophys., 40, 107–119, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-107-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-107-2022, 2022
Short summary
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.
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.
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.
Paul Prikryl, David R. Themens, Jaroslav Chum, Shibaji Chakraborty, Robert G. Gillies, and James M. Weygand
Ann. Geophys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2024-6, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2024-6, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for ANGEO
Short summary
Short summary
Travelling ionospheric disturbances are plasma density fluctuations usually driven by atmospheric gravity waves in the neutral atmosphere. The aim of this study is to attribute multi-instrument observations of travelling ionospheric disturbances to gravity waves generated in the upper atmosphere at high latitudes or gravity waves generated by tropospheric weather systems at mid latitudes.
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.
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.
Paul Prikryl, Robert G. Gillies, David R. Themens, James M. Weygand, Evan G. Thomas, and Shibaji Chakraborty
Ann. Geophys., 40, 619–639, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-619-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-619-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The solar wind interaction with Earth’s magnetic field deposits energy into the upper portion of the atmosphere at high latitudes. The coupling process that modulates the ionospheric convection and intensity of ionospheric currents leads to formation of densely ionized patches convecting across the polar cap. The ionospheric currents launch traveling ionospheric disturbances (TIDs) propagating equatorward. The polar cap patches and TIDs are then observed by networks of radars and GPS receivers.
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.
Homayon Aryan, Jacob Bortnik, Jinxing Li, James Michael Weygand, Xiangning Chu, and Vassilis Angelopoulos
Ann. Geophys., 40, 531–544, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-531-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-531-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we use a multipoint analysis of conjugate magnetospheric and ionospheric observations to investigate the magnetospheric and ionospheric responses to fast flow bursts that are associated with different space weather conditions. The results show that ionospheric currents are connected to the magnetospheric flows for different space weather conditions. The connection is more apparent and global for flows that are associated with a geomagnetically active condition.
Sebastian Käki, Ari Viljanen, Liisa Juusola, and Kirsti Kauristie
Ann. Geophys., 40, 107–119, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-107-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-107-2022, 2022
Short summary
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.
Lucile Turc, Vertti Tarvus, Andrew P. Dimmock, Markus Battarbee, Urs Ganse, Andreas Johlander, Maxime Grandin, Yann Pfau-Kempf, Maxime Dubart, and Minna Palmroth
Ann. Geophys., 38, 1045–1062, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-38-1045-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-38-1045-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Using global computer simulations, we study properties of the magnetosheath, the region of near-Earth space where the stream of particles originating from the Sun, the solar wind, is slowed down and deflected around the Earth's magnetic field. One of our main findings is that even for idealised solar wind conditions as used in our model, the magnetosheath density shows large-scale spatial and temporal variation in the so-called quasi-parallel magnetosheath, causing varying levels of asymmetry.
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
Amm, O.: Ionospheric elementary current systems in spherical coordinates and
their application, J. Geomagn. Geoelectr., 49, 947–955,
https://doi.org/10.5636/jgg.49.947, 1997. a
Amm, O. and Viljanen, A.: Ionospheric disturbance magnetic field continuation
from the ground to ionosphere using spherical elementary current systems,
Earth Planet. Space, 51, 431–440,
https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352247, 1999. a
Apatenkov, S. V., Pilipenko, V. A., Gordeev, E. I., Viljanen, A., Juusola, L.,
Belakhovsky, V. B., Sakharov, Y. A., and Selivanov, V. N.: Auroral omega
bands are a significant cause of large geomagnetically induced currents,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086677,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086677, 2020. a
Balan, N., Ebihara, Y., Skoug, R., Shiokawa, K., Batista, I. S., Ram, S. T.,
Omura, Y., Nakamura, T., and Fok, M.-C.: A scheme for forecasting severe
space weather, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 122, 2824–2835,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023853, 2017. a
Blake, S. P., Pulkkinen, A., Schuck, P. W., Glocer, A., Oliveira, D. M.,
Welling, D. T., Weigel, R. S., and Quaresima, G.: Recreating the horizontal
magnetic field at Colaba during the Carrington event with geospace
simulations, Space Weather, 19, e2020SW002585,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002585, 2021. a
Clauer, C. R. and Siscoe, G.: The great historical geomagnetic storm of 1859:
A modern look, Adv. Space Res., 38, 117–118,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2006.09.001, 2006. a
Clilverd, M. A., Rodger, C. J., Freeman, M. P., Brundell, J. B., Manus, D.
H. M., Dalzell, M., Clarke, E., Thomson, A. W. P., Richardson, G. S.,
MacLeod, F., and Frame, I.: Geomagnetically induced currents during the
07–08 September 2017 disturbed period: a global perspective, J. Space Weather Spac., 11, 33, https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2021014,
2021. a
Curto, J. J., Araki, T., and Alberca, L. F.: Evolution of the concept of
Sudden Storm Commencements and their operative identification, Earth Planet. Space, 59, i–xii, https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352059, 2007. a
Davis, T. N. and Sugiura, M.: Auroral electrojet activity index AE and its
universal time variations, J. Geophys. Res., 71, 785–801,
https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ071i003p00785, 1966. a
Dimmock, A. P., Rosenqvist, L., Hall, J.-O., Viljanen, A., Yordanova, E.,
Honkonen, I., André, M., and Sjöberg, E. C.: The GIC and geomagnetic
response over Fennoscandia to the 7–8 September 2017 geomagnetic storm,
Space Weather, 17, 989–1010, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018SW002132,
2019. a, b
Dimmock, A. P., Rosenqvist, L., Welling, D. T., Viljanen, A., Honkonen, I.,
Boynton, R. J., and Yordanova, E.: On the regional variability of
Dimmock, A. P., Welling, D. T., Rosenqvist, L., Forsyth, C., Freeman, M. P.,
Rae, I. J., Viljanen, A., Vandegriff, E., Boynton, R. J., Balikhin, M. A.,
and Yordanova, E.: Modeling the geomagnetic response to the September 2017
space weather event over Fennoscandia using the space weather modeling
framework: Studying the impacts of spatial resolution, Space Weather, 19,
e2020SW002683, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002683, 2021. 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., 115, A08322,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015326, 2010. a
Engebretson, M., Glassmeier, K.-H., Stellmacher, M., Hughes, W. J., and
Lühr, H.: The dependence of high-latitude PcS wave power on solar wind
velocity and on the phase of high-speed solar wind streams, J. Geophys.
Res., 103, 26271–26283, https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA03143,
1998. a
Engebretson, M. J., Pilipenko, V. A., Ahmed, L. Y., Posch, J. L., Steinmetz,
E. S., Moldwin, M. B., Connors, M. G., Weygand, J. M., Mann, I. R., Boteler,
D. H., Russell, C. T., and Vorobev, A. V.: Nighttime magnetic perturbation
events observed in Arctic Canada: 1. Survey and statistical analysis, J.
Geophys. Res.-Space, 124, 7442–7458,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA026794, 2019a. a
Engebretson, M. J., Steinmetz, E. S., Posch, J. L., Pilipenko, V. A., Moldwin,
M. B., Connors, M. G., Boteler, D. H., Mann, I. R., Hartinger, M. D.,
Weygand, J. M., Lyons, L. R., Nishimura, Y., Singer, H. J., Ohtani, S.,
Russell, C. T., Fazakerley, A., and Kistler, L. M.: Nighttime magnetic
perturbation events observed in Arctic Canada: 2. Multiple-instrument
observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 124, 7459–7476,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA026797, 2019b. a
Engebretson, M. J., Ahmed, L. Y., Pilipenko, V. A., Steinmetz, E. S., Moldwin,
M. B., Connors, M. G., Boteler, D. H., Weygand, J. M., Coyle, S., Ohtani, S.,
Gjerloev, J., and Russell, C. T.: Superposed epoch analysis of nighttime
magnetic perturbation events observed in Arctic Canada, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 126, e2021JA029465,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JA029465, 2021. a, b, c, d, e, f
Fiori, R. A. D., Boteler, D. H., and Gillies, D. M.: Assessment of GIC risk
due to geomagnetic sudden commencements and identification of the current
systems responsible, Space Weather, 12, 76–91,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2013SW000967, 2014. a
Fligge, M., Solanki, S. K., and Beer, J.: Determination of solar cycle length
variations using the continuous wavelet transform, Astron.
Astrophys., 346, 313–321, 1999. a
Forsyth, C., Sergeev, V. A., Henderson, M. G., Nishimura, Y., and
Gallardo-Lacourt, B.: Physical processes of meso-scale, dynamic auroral
forms, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 46,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-020-00665-y, 2020. a, b
Frey, H. U., Mende, S. B., Angelopoulos, V., and Donovan, E. F.: Substorm
onset observations by IMAGE-FUV, J. Geophys. Res., 109, A10304,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010607, 2004. a
GIC recordings in the Finnish natural gas pipeline: ASCII files [data set], https://space.fmi.fi/gic/man_ascii/, last access: 22 December 2022. a
Gregory, R. L., Gommers, R., Wasilewski, F., Wohlfahrt, K., and O'Leary, A.:
PyWavelets: A Python package for wavelet analysis [code], J. Open Source
Softw., 4, 1237, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01237, 2019. a, b
Haines, G. V. and Torta, J. M.: Determination of equivalent current sources
from spherical cap harmonic models of geomagnetic field variations,
Geophys. J. Int., 118, 499–514,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1994.tb03981.x, 1994. a
Hajra, R.: Intense, long-duration geomagnetically induced currents (GICs)
caused by intense substorm clusters, Space Weather, 20, e2021SW002937,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021SW002937, 2022. a, b
Huang, C.-S., Foster, J. C., Goncharenko, L. P., Reeves, G. D., Chau, J. L.,
Yumoto, K., and Kitamura, K.: Variations of low-latitude geomagnetic fields
and Dst index caused by magnetospheric substorms, J. Geophys. Res., 109,
A05219, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010334, 2004. a
Huttunen, K. E. J., Kilpua, S. P., Pulkkinen, A., Viljanen, A., and
Tanskanen, E.: Solar wind drivers of large geomagnetically induced currents
during the solar cycle 23, Space Weather, 6, S10002,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007SW000374, 2008. a, b
IMAGE data: IMAGE data download + custom magnetograms [data set], https://space.fmi.fi/image/www/?page=user_defined, last access: 22 December 2022. a
Iyemori, T. and Rao, D. R. K.: Decay of the Dst field of geomagnetic
disturbance after substorm onset and its implication to storm-substorm
relation, Ann. Geophys., 14, 608–618,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00585-996-0608-3, 1996. a
Juusola, L., Nakamura, R., Amm, O., and Kauristie, K.: Conjugate ionospheric
equivalent currents during bursty bulk flows, J. Geophys. Res., 114, A04313,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JA013908, 2009. a
Juusola, L., Kauristie, K., van de Kamp, M., Tanskanen, E. I., Mursula, K.,
Asikainen, T., Andréeová, K., Partamies, N., Vanhamäki, H., and
Viljanen, A.: Solar wind control of ionospheric equivalent currents and
their time derivatives, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 120, 4971–4992,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021204, 2015a. a
Juusola, L., Viljanen, A., van de Kamp, M., Tanskanen, E. I., Vanhamäki,
H., Partamies, N., and Kauristie, K.: High-latitude ionospheric equivalent
currents during strong space storms: regional perspective, Space Weather,
13, 49–60, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014SW001139, 2015b. a
Juusola, L., Kauristie, K., Vanhamäki, H., and Aikio, A.: Comparison of
auroral ionospheric and field-aligned currents derived from Swarm and ground
magnetic field measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 121,
9256–9283, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA022961, 2016. a, b, c
Kataoka, R. and Pulkkinen, A.: Geomagnetically induced currents during intense
storms driven by coronal mass ejections and corotating interacting regions,
J. Geophys. Res., 113, A03S12, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JA012487,
2008. a
Kauristie, K., Pulkkinen, T. I., Pellinen, R. J., and Opgenoorth, H. J.: What
can we tell about global auroral-electrojet activity from a single meridional
magnetometer chain?, Ann. Geophys., 14, 1177–1185,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00585-996-1177-1, 1996. a, b
Kellinsalmi, M., Viljanen, A., Juusola, L., and Käki, S.: The time derivative of the geomagnetic field has a short memory, Ann. Geophys., 40, 545–562, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-545-2022, 2022. a
Kelly, G. S., Viljanen, A., Beggan, C. D., and Thomson, A. W. P.:
Understanding GIC in the UK and French high-voltage transmission systems
during severe magnetic storms, Space Weather, 15, 99–114,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016SW001469, 2017. a
Kleimenova, N. G., Gromova, L. I., Dremukhina, L. A., Levitin, A. E., Zelinsky,
N. R., and Gromov, S. V.: High-latitude geomagnetic effects of the main
phase of the geomagnetic storm of November 24, 2001 with the Northern
direction of IMF, Geomagn. Aeron., 55, 174–184,
https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793215020097, 2015. a
Korja, T., Engels, M., Zhamaletdinov, A. A., Kovtun, A. A., Palshin, N. A.,
Smirnov, M. Y., Tokarev, A. D., Asming, V. E., Vanyan, L. L., Vardaniants,
I. L., and the BEAR Working Group: Crustal conductivity in Fennoscandia
– a compilation of a database on crustal conductance in the Fennoscandian
Shield, Earth Planet. Space, 54, 535–558,
https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03353044, 2002. a
Kruglyakov, M., Kuvshinov, A., and Marshalko, E.: Real-time 3-D modeling of
the ground electric field due to space weather events, A concept and its
validation, Space Weather, 20, e2021SW002906,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021SW002906, 2022. a
Kwagala, N. G., Hesse, M., Moretto, T., Tenfjord, P., Norgren, C., Tóth,
G., Gombosi, T., Kolstø, H., and Spinnangr, S. F.: Validating the Space
Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF) for applications in northern Europe. Ground
magnetic perturbation validation., J. Space Weather Spac., 10, 33,
https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2020034, 2020. a
Laundal, K. M., van der Meeren, C., Burrell, A. G., Starr, G., Reimer, A., Morschhauser, A., and Lamarche, L.: ApexPy [code], https://apexpy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/, last access: 22 December 2022. a
Lehtinen, M. and Pirjola, R.: Currents produced in earthed conductor networks
by geomagnetically-induced electric fields, Ann. Geophys., 3, 479–484,
1985. a
Marshalko, E., Kruglyakov, M., Kuvshinov, A., Juusola, L., Kwagala, N. K.,
Sokolova, E., and Pilipenko, V.: Comparing three approaches to the inducing
source setting for the ground electromagnetic field modeling due to space
weather events, Space Weather, 19, e2020SW002657,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002657, 2021. a
Myllys, M., Viljanen, A., Rui, Ø. A., and Ohnstad, T. M.: Geomagnetically
induced currents in Norway: the northernmost high-voltage power grid in the
world, J. Space Weather Spac., 4, A10,
https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2014007, 2014. a
Ngwira, C. M., Sibeck, D., Silveira, M. D. V., Georgiou, M., Weygand, J. M.,
Nishimura, Y., and Hampton, D.: A study of intense local dB/dt variations
during two geomagnetic storms, Space Weather, 16, 676–693,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018SW001911, 2018. a
Oliveira, D. M. and Samsonov, A. A.: Geoeffectiveness of interplanetary shocks
controlled by impact angles: A review, Adv. Space Res., 61,
1–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2017.10.006, 2018. a
Opgenoorth, H. J., Oksman, J., Kaila, U., Nielsen, E., and Baumjohann, W.:
Characteristics of eastward drifting omega bands in the morning sector of
the auroral oval, J. Geophys. Res., 88, 9171–9185,
https://doi.org/10.1029/JA088iA11p09171, 1983. a, b
Panasyuk, M. I., Kuznetsov, S. N., Lazutin, L. L., Avdyushin, S. I., Alexeev,
I. I., Ammosov, P. P., Antonova, A. E., Baishev, D. G., Belenkaya, E. S.,
Beletsky, A. B., Belov, A. V., Benghin, V. V., Bobrovnikov, S. Y.,
Bondarenko, V. A., Boyarchuk, K. A., Veselovsky, I. S., Vyushkova, T. Y.,
Gavrilieva, G. A., Gaidash, S. P., Ginzburg, E. A., Denisov, Y. I., Dmitriev,
A. V., Zherebtsov, G. A., Zelenyi, L. M., Ivanov-Kholodny, G. S., Kalegaev,
V. V., Kanonidi, K. D., Kleimenova, N. G., Kozyreva, O. V., Kolomiitsev,
O. P., Krasheninnikov, I. A., Krivolutsky, A. A., Kropotkin, A. P., Kuminov,
A. A., Leshchenko, L. N., Mar'in, B. V., Mitrikas, V. G., Mikhalev, A. V.,
Mullayarov, V. A., Muravieva, E. A., Myagkova, I. N., Petrov, V. M.,
Petrukovich, A. A., Podorolsky, A. N., Pudovkin, M. I., Samsonov, S. N.,
Sakharov, Y. A., Svidsky, P. M., Sokolov, V. D., Soloviev, S. I., Sosnovets,
E. N., Starkov, G. V., Starostin, L. I., Tverskaya, L. V., Teltsov, M. V.,
Troshichev, O. A., Tsetlin, V. V., and Yushkov, B. Y.: Magnetic Storms in
October 2003, Cosmic Res., 42, 489–535,
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:COSM.0000046230.62353.61, 2004. a, b
Papitashvili, N. E. and King, J. H.: OMNI 1-min Data, NASA Space Physics Data
Facility [data set], https://doi.org/10.48322/45bb-8792, 2020. a, b
Parkhomov, V. A., Mishin, V. V., and Borovik, L. V.: Long-period geomagnetic
pulsations caused by the solar wind negative pressure impulse on 22 March
1979 (CDAW-6), Ann. Geophys., 16, 134–139,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00585-998-0134-6, 1998. a
Partamies, N., Weygand, J. M., and Juusola, L.: Statistical study of auroral
omega bands, Ann. Geophys., 35, 1069–1083,
https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-35-1069-2017, 2017. a
Pirjola, R. J., Boteler, D. H., Tuck, L., and Marsal, S.: The Lehtinen-Pirjola
method modified for efficient modelling of geomagnetically induced currents
in multiple voltage levels of a power network, Ann. Geophys., 40, 205–215,
https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-205-2022, 2022. a
Pulkkinen, A., Viljanen, A., Pajunpää, K., and Pirjola, R.: Recordings
and occurrence of geomagnetically induced currents in the Finnish natural gas
pipeline network, J. Appl. Geophys., 48, 219–231,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-9851(01)00108-2, 2001. a
Pulkkinen, A., Amm, O., Viljanen, A., and BEAR Working Group: Ionospheric
equivalent current distributions determined with the method of spherical
elementary current systems, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 1053,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA005085, 2003a. a, b
Pulkkinen, A., Amm, O., Viljanen, A., and BEAR Working Group: Separation of
the geomagnetic variation field on the ground into external and internal
parts using the spherical elementary current system method, Earth Planet. Space, 55, 117–129, https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03351739,
2003b. a
Pulkkinen, A., Lindahl, S., Viljanen, A., and Pirjola, R.: Geomagnetic storm
of 29–31 October 2003: Geomagnetically induced currents and their relation
to problems in the Swedish high-voltage power transmission system, Space
Weather, 3, S08C03, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004SW000123, 2005. a, b, c, d
Pulkkinen, A., Bernabeu, E., Thomson, A., Viljanen, A., Pirjola, R., Boteler,
D., Eichner, J., Cilliers, P. J., Welling, D., Savani, N. P., Weigel, R. S.,
Love, J. J., Balch, C., Ngwira, C. M., Crowley, G., Schultz, A., Kataoka, R.,
Anderson, B., Fugate, D., Simpson, J. J., and MacAlester, M.:
Geomagnetically induced currents: Science, engineering, and applications
readiness, Space Weather, 15, 828–856,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016SW001501, 2017. a
Richmond, A. D.: Ionospheric electrodynamics using Magnetic Apex Coordinates,
J. Geomagn. Geoelectr., 47, 191–212,
https://doi.org/10.5636/jgg.47.191, 1995. a
Rogers, N. C., Wild, J. A., Eastoe, E. F., Gjerloev, J. W., and Thomson, A.
W. P.: A global climatological model of extreme geomagnetic field
fluctuations, J. Space Weather Spac., 10, 5,
https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2020008, 2020. a
Schillings, A., Palin, L., Opgenoorth, H., Hamrin, M., Rosenqvist, L.,
Gjerloev, J. W., Juusola, L., and Barnes, R.: Distribution and occurrence
frequency of dB/dt spikes during magnetic storms 1980–2020, Space Weather,
20, e2021SW002953, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021SW002953, 2022. a, b, c
Sillanpää, I., Lühr, H., Viljanen, A., and Ritter, P.: Quiet-time
magnetic variations at high latitude observatories, Earth Plane. Space, 56,
47–65, https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352490, 2004. a
Sudden Commencements (SC) [data set]: https://isgi.unistra.fr/events_sc.php, last access: 22 December 2022. a
Tanskanen, E. I., Viljanen, A., Pulkkinen, T. I., Pirjola, R., Häkkinen,
L., Pulkkinen, A., and Amm, O.: At substorm onset, 40 % of AL comes from
underground, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 13119–13134,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JA900135, 2001. a
Thébault, E., Finlay, C. C., Beggan, C. D., Alken, P., Aubert, J., Barrois,
O., Bertrand, F., Bondar, T., Boness, A., Brocco, L., Canet, E., Chambodut,
A., Chulliat, A., Coïsson, P., Civet, F., Du, A., Fournier, A., Fratter,
I., Gillet, N., Hamilton, B., Hamoudi, M., Hulot, G., Jager, T., Korte, M.,
Kuang, W., Lalanne, X., Langlais, B., Léger, J.-M., Lesur, V., Lowes,
F. J., Macmillan, S., Mandea, M., Manoj, C., Maus, S., Olsen, N., Petrov, V.,
Ridley, V., Rother, M., Sabaka, T. J., Saturnino, D., Schachtschneider, R.,
Sirol, O., Tangborn, A., Thomson, A., Tøffner-Clausen, L., Vigneron, P.,
Wardinski, I., and Zvereva, T.: International Geomagnetic Reference Field:
the 12th generation, Earth Planet. Space, 67, 79,
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-015-0228-9, 2015. a
Torrence, C. and Compo, G. P.: A practical guide to wavelet analysis, Bull.
Am. Meteorol. Soc., 79, 61–78,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079<0061:APGTWA>2.0.CO;2, 1998. a
Tsurutani, B. T., Hajra, R., Echer, E., and Gjerloev, J. W.: Extremely intense
(SML
Untiedt, J. and Baumjohann, W.: Studies of polar current systems using the IMS
Scandinavian magnetometer array, Space Sci. Rev., 63, 245–390,
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00750770, 1993. a
van de Kamp, M.: Harmonic quiet-day curves as magnetometer baselines for ionospheric current analyses, Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 2, 289–304, https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2-289-2013, 2013. a
Vanhamäki, H. and Juusola, L.: Review of data analysis techniques for
estimating ionospheric currents based on MIRACLE and satellite observations,
in: Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond, American Geophysical Union, 409–425,
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119324522.ch24, 2018. a
Vanhamäki, H. and Juusola, L.: Introduction to Spherical Elementary
Current Systems, in: Ionospheric Multi-Spacecraft Analysis Tools,
5–33, ISSI Scientific Report Series, Springer, Cham, 17,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26732-2, 2020. a, b, c
Viljanen, A.: Relation of geomagnetically induced currents and local
geomagnetic variations, in: IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, IEEE, Vol. 13, 4,
1285–1290, https://doi.org/10.1109/61.714497, 1998. a
Viljanen, A., Amm, O., and Pirjola, R.: Modeling geomagnetically induced
currents during different ionospheric situations, J. Geophys. Res.,
104, 28059–28071, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JA900337, 1999. a
Viljanen, A., Nevanlinna, H., Pajunpää, K., and Pulkkinen, A.: Time
derivative of the horizontal geomagnetic field as an activity indicator,
Ann. Geophys., 19, 1107–1118,
https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-19-1107-2001, 2001.
a, b, c
Viljanen, A., Pulkkinen, A., Pirjola, R., Pajunpää, K., Posio, P., and
Koistinen, A.: Recordings of geomagnetically induced currents and a
nowcasting service of the Finnish natural gas pipeline system, Space
Weather, 4, S10004, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006SW000234,
2006a. a
Viljanen, A., Pirjola, R., Wik, M., Ádám, A., Prácser, E.,
Sakharov, Y., and Katkalov, J.: Continental scale modelling of
geomagnetically induced currents, J. Space Weather Spac., 2, A17,
https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2012017, 2012. a
Viljanen, A., Pirjola, R., Prácser, E., Katkalov, J., and Wik, M.:
Geomagnetically induced currents in Europe – Modelled occurrence in a
continent-wide power grid, J. Space Weather Spac., 4, A09,
https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2014006, 2014. a, b
Weygand, J. M., Kivelson, M. G., Frey, H. U., Rodriguez, J. V., Angelopoulos,
V., Redmon, R., Barker-Ream, J., Grocott, A., and Amm, O.: An interpretation
of spacecraft and ground based observations of multiple omega band events,
J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys., 133, 185–204,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2015.08.014, 2015. a
Weygand, J. M., Engebretson, M. J., Pilipenko, V. A., Steinmetz, E. S.,
Moldwin, M. B., Connors, M. G., Nishimura, Y., Lyons, L. R., Russell, C. T.,
Ohtani, S.-I., and Gjerloev, J.: SECS Analysis of Nighttime Magnetic
Perturbation Events Observed in Arctic Canada, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 126, e2021JA029839, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JA029839,
2021. a
Weygand, J. M., El-Alaoui, M., and Nykyri, H. K.: The source of auroral
omegas, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 127, e2021JA029908,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JA029908, 2022. a
Wintoft, P., Viljanen, A., and Wik, M.: Extreme value analysis of the time
derivative of the horizontal magnetic field and computed electric field,
Ann. Geophys., 34, 485–491, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-34-485-2016,
2016. a
Wu, C.-C., Liou, K., Lepping, R. P., Hutting, L., Plunkett, S., Howard, R. A.,
and Socker, D.: The first super geomagnetic storm of solar cycle 24: “The
St. Patrick's day event (17 March 2015)”, Earth Planet. Space, 68, 151,
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-016-0525-y, 2016. a
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.
We have examined events during which the measured magnetic field on the ground changes very...
