Articles | Volume 43, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-43-15-2025
© Author(s) 2025. 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-43-15-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A two-step geospace storm as a new tool of opportunity for experimentally estimating the threshold condition for the formation of a substorm current wedge
Leonid F. Chernogor
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Space Radio Physics, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv 61022, Ukraine
Related authors
Leonid F. Chernogor
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4375, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4375, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Annales Geophysicae (ANGEO).
Short summary
Short summary
A unique multi-step storm of March 21–26, 2024, was studied in detail. Assessments of the energetics of geospace, magnetospheric and magnetic storms were carried out. The strongest storm of March 24–25, 2024, was compared to the storms of April 23–24, 2023, May 10–11, 2024, and to the Carrington event. Differences in magnetic disturbances in the eastern and western hemispheres have been found.
Tao Xu, Yaya Liu, Leonid Chernogor, Zhejun Jin, Mykyta Shevelev, Yevhen Zhdanko, and Yu Zheng
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3661, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3661, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Annales Geophysicae (ANGEO).
Short summary
Short summary
From May 10 to 12, 2024, a strong geomagnetic storm impacted Earth’s magnetic field and ionosphere over China. Using ground-based and satellite data, this study identified 2.5 days of magnetic disturbances and sharp electron density reductions alongside an uplift of the main ionospheric layer. Negative storm effects from electric fields, plasma motion, and composition changes inform space weather forecasting and system protection.
Leonid Chernogor
Ann. Geophys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2023-27, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2023-27, 2023
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
The Tonga volcano explosion launched a rich assortment of disturbances in the solid Earth, ocean, entire atmosphere, and the ionosphere and magnetosphere. Statistical and spectral analysis of the measurements made at 19 INTERMAGNET recording stations closest to the volcano shows that the quasi-periodic disturbances were transported by fast and slow magnetohydrodynamic waves, blast wave, atmospheric gravity wave, and Lamb wave; the parameters of geomagnetic bay disturbances have also estimated.
Leonid F. Chernogor, Kostiantyn P. Garmash, Qiang Guo, Victor T. Rozumenko, and Yu Zheng
Ann. Geophys., 41, 173–195, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-173-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-173-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The receiver at the Harbin Engineering University and eight surrounding HF broadcast stations ~1000 km observed the response in the ionospheric electron density to the activity of Typhoon Kong-rey (30 September–6 October 2018). On 1–2 and 5–6 October 2018, the 20 min to 60 min period quasi-sinusoidal variations in the electron density with an amplitude of 0.4 % to 6 % resulted in 0.1 Hz to 0.5 Hz amplitude Doppler shift variations, a factor of 2–3 increase as compared to a quiet time reference.
Leonid F. Chernogor, Kostyantyn P. Garmash, Qiang Guo, Victor T. Rozumenko, and Yu Zheng
Ann. Geophys., 40, 585–603, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-585-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-585-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The solar eclipse of 5–6 January 2019 perturbed the ionospheric electron density, N, observed with the receiver at the Harbin Engineering University and 14 HF broadcasting stations ~1 000 km around. It was accompanied by ±1.5 Hz Doppler-spectrum broadening, ±0.5 Hz Doppler shift, fD, variations, 15 min period variations in fD caused by 1.6–2.4 % perturbations in N, and period changes of 4–5 min in fD caused by 0.2–0.3 % disturbances in N. The decrease in N attained ~15 % (vs. modeled 16 %).
Yiyang Luo, Leonid Chernogor, Kostiantyn Garmash, Qiang Guo, Victor Rozumenko, and Yu Zheng
Ann. Geophys., 39, 657–685, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-39-657-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-39-657-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The 30 August–2 September 2019 geospace storm and its influence on the characteristics of high frequency radio waves over the People's Republic of China have been analyzed. The geospace storm was weak, the magnetic storm was moderate, and the ionospheric storm was moderate to strongly negative, which manifested itself by the reduction in the ionospheric F-region electron density. Appreciable disturbances were also observed to occur in the ionospheric E-region and possibly in the Es layer.
Leonid F. Chernogor
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4375, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4375, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Annales Geophysicae (ANGEO).
Short summary
Short summary
A unique multi-step storm of March 21–26, 2024, was studied in detail. Assessments of the energetics of geospace, magnetospheric and magnetic storms were carried out. The strongest storm of March 24–25, 2024, was compared to the storms of April 23–24, 2023, May 10–11, 2024, and to the Carrington event. Differences in magnetic disturbances in the eastern and western hemispheres have been found.
Tao Xu, Yaya Liu, Leonid Chernogor, Zhejun Jin, Mykyta Shevelev, Yevhen Zhdanko, and Yu Zheng
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3661, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3661, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Annales Geophysicae (ANGEO).
Short summary
Short summary
From May 10 to 12, 2024, a strong geomagnetic storm impacted Earth’s magnetic field and ionosphere over China. Using ground-based and satellite data, this study identified 2.5 days of magnetic disturbances and sharp electron density reductions alongside an uplift of the main ionospheric layer. Negative storm effects from electric fields, plasma motion, and composition changes inform space weather forecasting and system protection.
Leonid Chernogor
Ann. Geophys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2023-27, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2023-27, 2023
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
The Tonga volcano explosion launched a rich assortment of disturbances in the solid Earth, ocean, entire atmosphere, and the ionosphere and magnetosphere. Statistical and spectral analysis of the measurements made at 19 INTERMAGNET recording stations closest to the volcano shows that the quasi-periodic disturbances were transported by fast and slow magnetohydrodynamic waves, blast wave, atmospheric gravity wave, and Lamb wave; the parameters of geomagnetic bay disturbances have also estimated.
Leonid F. Chernogor, Kostiantyn P. Garmash, Qiang Guo, Victor T. Rozumenko, and Yu Zheng
Ann. Geophys., 41, 173–195, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-173-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-173-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The receiver at the Harbin Engineering University and eight surrounding HF broadcast stations ~1000 km observed the response in the ionospheric electron density to the activity of Typhoon Kong-rey (30 September–6 October 2018). On 1–2 and 5–6 October 2018, the 20 min to 60 min period quasi-sinusoidal variations in the electron density with an amplitude of 0.4 % to 6 % resulted in 0.1 Hz to 0.5 Hz amplitude Doppler shift variations, a factor of 2–3 increase as compared to a quiet time reference.
Leonid F. Chernogor, Kostyantyn P. Garmash, Qiang Guo, Victor T. Rozumenko, and Yu Zheng
Ann. Geophys., 40, 585–603, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-585-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-585-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The solar eclipse of 5–6 January 2019 perturbed the ionospheric electron density, N, observed with the receiver at the Harbin Engineering University and 14 HF broadcasting stations ~1 000 km around. It was accompanied by ±1.5 Hz Doppler-spectrum broadening, ±0.5 Hz Doppler shift, fD, variations, 15 min period variations in fD caused by 1.6–2.4 % perturbations in N, and period changes of 4–5 min in fD caused by 0.2–0.3 % disturbances in N. The decrease in N attained ~15 % (vs. modeled 16 %).
Yiyang Luo, Leonid Chernogor, Kostiantyn Garmash, Qiang Guo, Victor Rozumenko, and Yu Zheng
Ann. Geophys., 39, 657–685, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-39-657-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-39-657-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The 30 August–2 September 2019 geospace storm and its influence on the characteristics of high frequency radio waves over the People's Republic of China have been analyzed. The geospace storm was weak, the magnetic storm was moderate, and the ionospheric storm was moderate to strongly negative, which manifested itself by the reduction in the ionospheric F-region electron density. Appreciable disturbances were also observed to occur in the ionospheric E-region and possibly in the Es layer.
Cited articles
Abe, O. E., Fakomiti, M. O., Igboama, W. N., Akinola, O. O., Ogunmodimu, O., and Migoya-Orué, Y. O.: Statistical analysis of the occurrence rate of geomagnetic storms during solar cycles 20–24, Adv. Space Res., 71, 2240–2251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.10.033, 2023.
Al Shidi, Q., Pulkkinen, T., Toth, G., Brenner, A., Zou, S., and Gjerloev, J.: A large simulation set of geomagnetic storms–Can simulations predict ground magnetometer station observations of magnetic field perturbations?, Space Weather, 20, e2022SW003049, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003049, 2022.
Bothmer, V. and Daglis, I.: Space Weather: Physics and Effects, Springer-Verlag, New York, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-34578-7, 2006.
Buonsanto, M.: Ionospheric storms – A review, Space Sci. Rev., 88, 563–601, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005107532631, 1999.
CEDAR: The New Dimension, https://cedarscience.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/CEDAR_October_V9.2.pdf (last access: 15 October 2024), 2010.
Chernogor, L. F.: Physics of geospace storms, Space Science and Technology, 27, 3–77, https://doi.org/10.15407/knit2021.01.003, 2021a.
Chernogor, L. F.: Statistical Characteristics of Geomagnetic Storms in the 24th Cycle of Solar Activity, Kinemat. Phys. Celest.+, 37, 193–199, https://doi.org/10.3103/S0884591321040048, 2021b.
Chernogor, L. F. and Domnin, I. F.: Physics of geospace storms, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University Publ., Kharkiv, 2014.
Chernogor, L. F. and Shevelev, M. B.: Latitudinal dependence of quasi-periodic variations in the geomagnetic field during the greatest geospace storm of September 7–9, 2017, Space Sci. Technol., 26, 72–83, https://doi.org/10.15407/knit2020.02.072, 2020.
Chernogor, L. F., Grigorenko, Ye. I., Lysenko, V. N., and Taran, V. I.: Dynamic processes in the ionosphere during magnetic storms from the Kharkov incoherent scatter radar observations, Int. J. Geomagn. Aeron., 7, GI3001, 2007.
Chernogor, L. F., Garmash, K. P., Guo, Q., and Zheng, Y.: Effects of the Strong Ionospheric Storm of August 26, 2018: Results of Multipath Radiophysical Monitoring, Geomagn. Aeronomy+, 61, 73–91, https://doi.org/10.1134/S001679322006002X, 2021.
Daglis, I. A.: Space Storms and Space Weather Hazards, Springer Dordrecht, New York, https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781402000300 (last access: 19 December 2024), 2001.
Danilov, A. D. and Laštovička, J.: Effects of geomagnetic storms on the ionosphere and atmosphere, Int. J. Geomagn. Aeron., 2, 209–224, https://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/ijga/v02/gai99312/gai99312.htm (last access: 19 December 2024), 2001.
De Abreu, A. J., Correia, E., De Jesus, R., Venkatesh, K., Macho, E. P., and Roberto, M.: Statistical analysis on the ionospheric response over South American mid- and near high-latitudes during 70 intense geomagnetic storms occurred in the period of two decades, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phy., 245, 106060, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2023.106060, 2023.
Fagundes, P. R., Tsali-Brown, V. Y., Pillat, V. G., Arcanjo, M. O., Venkatesh, K., and Habarulema, J. B.: Ionospheric storm due to solar Coronal mass ejection in September 2017 over the Brazilian and African longitudes, Adv. Space Res., 71, 46–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.07.040, 2023.
Fuller-Rowell, T. J., Codrescu, M. V., Roble, R. G., and Richmond, A. D.: How does the thermosphere and ionosphere react to a geomagnetic storm? Magnetic storms, in: Magnetic storms , Geoph. Monog. Series, edited by: Tsurutani B. T., Gonzalez W. D., Kamide Y., and Arballo J. K., American Geophysical Union, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA, https://doi.org/10.1029/GM098p0203, 98, 203–226, 1997.
Ghag, K., Raghav, A., Bhaskar, A., Soni, S. L., Sathe, B., Shaikh, Z., Dhamane, O., and Tari, P.: Quasi-planar ICME sheath: A cause of first two-step extreme geomagnetic storm of 25th solar cycle observed on 23 April 2023, Adv. Space Res., 73, 6288–6297, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2024.03.011, 2024.
Gonzalez, W. D., Jozelyn, J. A., Kamide, Y., Kroehl, H. W., Rostoker, G., Tsurutani, B. T., and Vasyliunas, V. M.: What is a geomagnetic storm? J. Geophys. Res., 99, 5771–5792, https://doi.org/10.1029/93JA02867, 1994.
Hsu, C.-T. and Pedatella, N. M.: Effects of forcing uncertainties on the thermospheric and ionospheric states during geomagnetic storm and quiet periods, Space Weather, 21, e2022SW003216, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003216, 2023.
INTERMAGNET: INTERMAGNET Data Viewer, https://imag-data.bgs.ac.uk/GIN_V1/GINForms2, last access: 19 December 2024.
Kamide, Y. and Maltsev, Y. P.: Geomagnetic Storms, in: Handbook of the Solar-Terrestrial Environment, edited by: Kamide, Y. and Chian, A., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-46315-3_14, 355–374, 2007.
Katsko, S. V., Emelyanov, L. Ya., and Chernogor, L. F.: Features of the Ionospheric Storm on December 21-24, 2016, Kinemat. Phys. Celest.+, 37, 85–95, https://doi.org/10.3103/S0884591321020045, 2021.
Kepko, L., McPherron, R. L., Amm, O., Apatenkov, S., Baumjohann, W., Birn, J., Lester, M., Nakamura, R., Pulkkinen, T. I., and Sergeev, V.: Substorm Current Wedge Revisited, Space Sci. Rev., 190, 1–46, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-014-0124-9, 2015.
Kleimenova, N. G., Kozyreva, O. V., Michnowski, S., and Kubicki, M.: Effect of magnetic storms in variations in the atmospheric electric field at midlatitudes, Geomagn. Aeronomy+, 48, 622–630, https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793208050071, 2008.
Kleimenova, N. G., Kubicki, M., Odzimek, A., Malysheva, L. M., and Gromova L. I.: Effects of geomagnetic disturbances in daytime variations of the atmospheric electric field in polar regions, Geomagn. Aeronomy+, 57, 266–273, https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793217030070, 2017.
Koskinen, H. E. J.: Physics of space storms. From Solar Surface to the Earth, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00319-6, 2011.
Laskar, F. I., Sutton, E. K., Lin, D., Greer, K. R., Aryal, S., and Cai, X.: Thermospheric temperature and density variability during 3–4 February 2022 minor geomagnetic storm, Space Weather, 21, e2022SW003349, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003349, 2023.
Laštovička, J.: Effects of geomagnetic storms in the lower ionosphere, middle atmosphere and troposphere, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 58, 831–843, https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9169(95)00106-9, 1996.
Lin, D., Wang, W., Merkin, V. G., Huang, C., Oppenheim, M., and Sorathia, K.: Origin of dawnside subauroral polarization streams during major geomagnetic storms, AGU Advances, 3, e2022AV000708, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022AV000708, 2022.
Luo, Y. and Chernogor, L. F.: Characteristic Features of the Magnetic and Ionospheric Storms on December 21–24, 2016, Kinemat. Phys. Celest.+, 38, 262–278, https://doi.org/10.3103/S0884591322050051, 2022.
Luo, Y., Chernogor, L., Garmash, K., Guo, Q., Rozumenko, V., and Zheng, Y.: Dynamic processes in the magnetic field and in the ionosphere during the 30 August–2 September 2019 geospace storm: influence on high frequency radio wave characteristics, Ann. Geophys., 39, 657–685, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-39-657-2021, 2021a.
Luo, Y., Guo, Q., Zheng, Y., Garmash, K. P., Chernogor, L. F., and Shulga, S. N.: Geospace storm effects on August 5–6, 2019, Space Science and Technology, 27, 45–69, https://doi.org/10.15407/knit2021.02.045, 2021b (in Ukrainian).
Luo, Y., Chernogor, L. F., and Garmash, K. P.: Magneto-Ionospheric Effects of the Geospace Storm of March 21–23, 2017, Kinemat. Phys. Celest.+, 38, 210–229, https://doi.org/10.3103/S0884591322040055, 2022.
Moldwin, M.: An introduction to space weather, 2nd edn., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108866538, 2022.
Oikonomou, C., Haralambous, H., Paul, A., Ray, S., Alfonsi, L., Cesaroni, C., and Sur, D.: Investigation of the negative ionospheric response of the 8 September 2017 geomagnetic storm over the European sector, Adv. Space Res., 70, 1104–1120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.05.035, 2022.
Prölss, G. W.: Ionospheric F-region storms, in: Handbook of Atmospheric Electrodynamics, edited by: Volland H., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203713297, 2, 195–248, 1995.
Prölss, G. W. and Roemer, M.: Thermospheric storms, Adv. Space Res., 7, 223–235, https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1177(87)90096-2, 1987.
Qian, L., Wang, W., Burns, A. G., Chamberlin, P. C., Coster, A., Zhang, S.-R., and Solomon, S. C.: Solar flare and geomagnetic storm effects on the thermosphere and ionosphere during 6–11 September 2017, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 124, 2298–2311, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA026175, 2019.
Song, P., Singer, H., and Siscoe, G. (Eds.): Space Weather, Geophysical Monograph, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118668351, 2001.
Tariq, M. A., Yuyan, Y., Shah, M., Shah, M. A., Iqbal, T., and Liu, L.: Ionospheric–Thermospheric responses to the May and September 2017 geomagnetic storms over Asian regions, Adv. Space Res., 70, 3731–3744, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.08.050, 2022.
Wen, D. and Mei, D.: Ionospheric TEC disturbances over China during the strong geomagnetic storm in September 2017, Adv. Space Res., 65, 2529–2539, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2020.03.002, 2020.
Wang, J., Yang, C., and An, W.: Regional Refined Long-term Predictions Method of Usable Frequency for HF Communication Based on Machine Learning over Asia, IEEE T. Antenn. Propag., 70, 4040–4055, https://doi.org/10.1109/TAP.2021.3111634, 2022.
Wang, J., Shi, Y., Yang, C., Zhang, Z., and Zhao, L.: A Short-term Forecast Method of Maximum Usable Frequency for HF Communication, IEEE T. Antenn. Propag., 71, 5189–5198, https://doi.org/10.1109/TAP.2023.3266584, 2023.
Short summary
This study, for the first time, convincingly attests to the two-step geospace storm being the best possible solar–terrestrial event of opportunity for realizing a technique for estimating the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) Bz component threshold for the formation of the substorm current wedge. The data from INTERMAGNET magnetometer network on the two-step geospace 23–24 April 2023 storm yield the IMF Bz threshold for the formation of the substorm current wedge of –(22–30) nT.
This study, for the first time, convincingly attests to the two-step geospace storm being the...