Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 1510.05298

Hemispheric Differences in the Response of the Upper Atmosphere to the August 2011 Geomagnetic Storm: A Simulation Study

Abstract

Using a three-dimensional nonhydrostatic general circulation model, we investigate the response of the thermosphere-ionosphere system to the 5-6 August 2011 major geomagnetic storm. The model is driven by measured storm-time input data of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF), solar activity, and auroral activity. Simulations for quiet steady conditions over the same period are performed as well in order to assess the response of the neutral and plasma parameters to the storm. During the storm, the high-latitude mean ion flows are enhanced by up to 150-180%. Largest ion flows are found in the main phase of the storm. Overall, the global mean neutral temperature increases by up to 15%, while the maximum thermal response is higher in the winter Southern Hemisphere at high-latitudes than the summer Northern Hemisphere: 40% vs. 20%increase in high-latitude mean temperature, respectively. The global mean Joule heating increases by more than a factor of three. There are distinct hemispheric differences in the magnitude and morphology of the horizontal ion flows and thermospheric flows during the different phases of the storm. The largest hemispheric difference in the thermospheric circulation is found during the main and recovery phases of the storm, demonstrating appreciable geographical variations. The advective forcing is found to contribute to the modeled hemispheric differences.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Erdal Yiğit, Harald U. Frey, Mark B. Moldwin, Thomas J. Immel, Aaron J. Ridley. 2015-10-18. Hemispheric Differences in the Response of the Upper Atmosphere to the August 2011 Geomagnetic Storm: A Simulation Study. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2015.10.002

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

First Observation of a Polar Coronal Hole-like Fast Solar Wind Stream in the Sub-Alfvénic Solar Corona: an Analysis of Turbulence Properties

Parker Solar Probe, near its 23rd perihelion in March 2025, sampled an extended interval of sub-Alfvénic solar wind likely originating from a large equatorial coronal hole. At heliocentric distances of approximately 10 solar radii, with speed mostly above 400 km/s, this interval is a first example of ``polar coronal hole-like (PCH-l) fast" solar wind observed in the sub-Alfvénic solar corona. We characterize the turbulence properties of this unique interval using Parker Solar Probe measurements. Despite being sampled well inside the nominal Alfvén surface, the turbulence appears to be already well developed while remaining strongly transverse and highly imbalanced, exhibiting a large cross helicity. These observations provide new constraints on the development and evolution of solar wind turbulence within the lower corona.

physics.space-ph↗

The Localized 12-hour Wave Over Alaska: Leveraging Meridional Wind Measurements From the Sodium Lidar

The 12-h wave in meridional winds in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere (MLT) during the solar minimum 2018-2019 Arctic winter is investigated using sodium lidar observations at Poker Flat Research Range (PFRR), Chatanika, Alaska (64N,147W). Nightly 12-h wave amplitudes increased significantly during December-January, with amplitudes exceeding 130 m/s above 97 km on several days. This was more than double the 12-h wave amplitudes observed outside this time period. Meteor radar winds over Chatanika also showed significant increase in meridional wind 12-h wave amplitudes at altitudes between 82 and 97 km during this time period with lower amplitudes than lidar measurements. The strong variation in 12-h wave amplitudes was not correlated with SME index, though the largest amplitudes coincided with the sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) in early January. Measurements were compared to a seasonal WACCM-X model run and four days of HIAMCM. For the four dates of available HIAMCM data, 12-h wave amplitudes over Chatanika were found to be similar between both HIAMCM and WACCM-X and the lidar below 97 km, with amplitudes measured by lidar exceeding the models at altitudes between 97-105 km. All measurements followed a similar seasonal trend with increasing amplitudes at the end of December/early January. Fits of SW2 from WACCM-X show the SW2 tidal amplitude following similar seasonal trends to 12-h wave measurements. These high-resolution lidar measurements indicate that localized 12-h wave amplitudes are larger than previously reported by studies using meteor radar measurements.

physics.space-ph↗

Coordinate Systems and Transforms in Space Physics: Terms, Definitions, Implementations, and Recommendations for Reproducibility

In space physics, acronyms for coordinate systems (e.g., \texttt{GEI}, \texttt{GSM}) are commonly used; however, differences in their definitions and implementations can prevent reproducibility. In this work, we compare definitions in online resources, software packages, and frequently cited journal articles and show that implementation differences can lead to transformations between same-named coordinate systems and position values from different data providers to differ significantly. Based on these comparisons and results, and to enable reproducibility, we recommend that (a) a standard for acronyms and definitions for coordinate systems is developed, similar to equivalents in astronomy or earth sciences; (b) a standards body develops a citable database of reference data needed for these transforms. For software that computes coordinate transforms, we also recommend that their developers provide explicit comparisons of their implementations with the results of (b) and documentation on implementation choices. Additionally, we provide recommendations for scientists and metadata developers to ensure that sufficient information is provided to enable reproducibility. Finally, we document that spacecraft positions from data providers can differ both because of differences in how they implemented transforms and because of differences in the original source of the position data, and provide recommendations to improve the documentation of spacecraft positional datasets.

physics.space-ph↗