Dynamic and Thermal Processes in the Mid-Latitude Ionosphere over Kharkov, Ukraine (49.6° N, 36.3° E), During the 13–15 November 2012 Magnetic Storm: Calculation Results
- 62 Downloads
Calculation results of the variations of dynamic and thermal process parameters in geospace plasma during the 13–15 November 2012, magnetic storm (MS) over Kharkov are presented. The calculations were based on experimental data obtained on the Kharkov incoherent scatter radar, single in the European mid-latitudes. Calculations showed that during the MS there took place an increase, by modulus, of the values of vertical component of transfer velocity, due to ambipolar diffusion, up to a factor of 1.4–2.1. During the MS there took place a decrease of the values of energy input to the electron gas by about 20–35%. During the main phase of MS, the heat flux density transferred by electrons increased up to a factor of 2–2.5. Results of estimates of the zonal component electric field value Ey are presented. During the MS the value of Ey was −9.5 mV/m. The vertical component of plasma velocity due to electromagnetic drift vEB has been calculated.
Key wordsmagnetic storm dynamic and thermal processes geospace
- Domnin, I.F., L.Ya. Emelyanov, S.V. Katsko, and L.F. Chernogor (2014b), Ionospheric effects of geospace storm of November 13–14, 2012, Radio Phys. Radio Astron. 19, 2, 170–180 (in Russian).Google Scholar
- Domnin, I.F., C. La Hoz, and M.V. Lyashenko (2014c), Variation of the electric field zonal component, the vertical component of the plasma drift and neutral wind velocities in ionosphere over Kharkov (Ukraine) during August 5–6, 2011 and November 13–15, 2012 magnetic storms, Bull. Nation. Tech. Univ. “Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute”. Series: Radio Physics and Ionosphere 47, 15–21.Google Scholar
- Finlay, C.C., S. Maus, C.D. Beggan, T.N. Bondar, A. Chambodut, T.A. Chernova, A. Chulliat, V.P. Golovkov, B. Hamilton, M. Hamoudi, R. Holme, G. Hulot, W. Kuang, B. Langlais, V. Lesur, F.J. Lowes, H. Lühr, S. MacMillan, M. Mandea, S. McLean, C. Manoj, M. Menvielle, I. Michaelis, N. Olsen, J. Rauberg, M. Rother, T.J. Sabaka, A. Tangborn, L. Tøffner-Clausen, E. Thébault, A.W.P. Thomson, I. Wardinski, Z. Wei, and T.I. Zvereva (2010), International geomagnetic reference field: the eleventh generation, Geophys. J. Int. 183, 3, 1216–1230, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04804.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Grigorenko, E.I., V.N. Lysenko, V.I. Taran, and L.F. Chernogor (2005a), Specific features of the ionospheric storm of March 20–23, 2003, Geomagn. Aeron. 45, 6, 745–757.Google Scholar
- Grigorenko, E.I., S.A. Pazyura, V.I. Taran, L.F. Chernogor, and S.V. Chernyaev (2005b), Dynamic processes in the ionosphere during the severe magnetic storm of May 30–31, 2003, Geomagn. Aeron. 45, 6, 758–777.Google Scholar
- Immel, T.J., G. Liu, S.L. England, L.P. Goncharenko, P.J. Erickson, M.V. Lya-shenko, M. Milla, J. Chau, H.U. Frey, S.B. Mende, Q. Zhou, A. Stromme, and L.J. Paxton (2015), The August 2011 URSI World Day campaign: Initial results, J. Atmos. Sol-Terr. Phys. 134, 47–55, DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp. 2015.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lyashenko, M.V. (2013), The effects of the partial solar eclipse on January 4, 2011 in the variety of thermal process parameters in ionosphere, Sun Geosph. 8, 1, 15–18.Google Scholar
- Richmond, A.D., M. Blanc, B.A. Emery, R.H. Wand, B.G Fejer, R.F. Woodman, S. Ganguly, P. Amayenc, R.A. Behnke, C. Calderon, and J.V. Evans (1980), An empirical model of quite-day ionospheric electric fields at middle and low latitudes, J. Geophys. Res. 85, A9, 4658–4664, DOI: 10.1029/JA085iA09p04658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sergeenko, N.P. (1982), Estimates of electric fields during ionospheric disturbances. In: R.A. Zevakina, and N.P. Sergeenko (eds.), Ionospheric Forecasting, Nauka, Moscow, 91–96 (in Russian).Google Scholar
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/.