Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Variations of the near-surface electric field measured at Aragats during geomagnetic storms

A. Chilingarian

Phys. Rev. D 111, 123012 – Published 6 June, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/p4ql-v1mb

Abstract

At least two mechanisms effectively transfer interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) disturbances into the atmosphere. First, the inflow of solar wind into the ionosphere at low latitudes significantly enhances the total vertical electron content, increasing atmospheric conductivity. Second, Forbush decreases (FD) reduce the cosmic ray flux by a few percent, lowering ionization levels at middle latitudes and decreasing conductivity. Changes in atmospheric conductivity affect the global electric circuit and atmospheric electric field (AEF). However, to study the response of AEF to geomagnetic storms (GMS), it is necessary to carefully monitor atmospheric conditions before and during storms, as meteorological influences can be much stronger than those of GMS. Charged clouds above detectors, lightning flashes, and abrupt weather changes significantly impact near-surface electric field (NSEF) variations, which serve as a proxy for AEF measured at the Earth’s surface. The facilities at Aragats station monitor all environmental parameters on a one-minute timescale. We analyze four GMS events described in previous studies, detailing the corresponding weather conditions to isolate the genuine influence of GMS on NSEF. The GMS of June 22, 2015, and September 8, 2017, occurred under fair-weather conditions, providing clear evidence of GMS influence on NSEF. These events were long-lasting, positive, and modest, ranging from 0.2 to 0.3  kV/m, and coincided with the depletion phase of FD. The sky was clear, no rain was detected, and lightning flashes from previous thunderstorms were more than 20 km from the station. The other two events did not meet favorable weather criteria, and their occurrence during GMS seemed incidental. We identify a feature that may indicate the solar (FD) origin of NSEF enhancement: a dip in the enhanced NSEF during the daytime.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (28)

  1. A. Chilingarian, T. Karapetyan, B. Sargsyan, Y. Khanikyanc, and S. Chilingaryan, Measurements of particle fluxes, electric fields, and lightning occurrences at the aragats space-environmental center (ASEC), Pure Appl. Geophys. 181, 1963 (2024).
  2. N. G. Kleimenova, O. V. Kozyreva, S. Michnowski, and M. Kubickib, Effect of magnetic storms on variations in the atmospheric electric field at midlatitudes, Geomagn. Aeron. 48, 622 (2008).
  3. S. E. Smirnov, G. A. Mikhailova, and O. V. Kapustina, Variations in the quasi-static electric field in the near-Earth’s atmosphere during geomagnetic storms in November 2004, Geomagn. Aeron. 53, 502 (2013).
  4. S. V. Anisimov, N. M. Shikhova, and N. G. Kleimenova, Response of a magnetospheric storm in the atmospheric electric field of the midlatitudes, Geomagn. Aeron. 61, 180 (2021).
  5. S. Qiu, Y. Xie, M. Shi, H. Yousof, W. Soon, Z. Ren, M. Jia, and X. Dou, Observations and analysis of the mid-latitude atmospheric electric field during geomagnetic activity, J. Geophys. Res. 127, e2022JA030785 (2022).
  6. W. Li, Z. Sun, T. Chen, Z. Yan, J. Luo, Q. Xu, and Z. Ma, Different effects of a super storm on atmospheric electric fields at different latitudes, Atmosphere 15, 1314 (2024).
  7. A. Chilingarian, T. Karapetyan, B. Sargsyan, J. Knapp, M. Walter, and T. Rehm, Increase in the count rates of ground-based cosmic-ray detectors caused by the heliomagnetic disturbance on 5 November 2023, Europhys. Lett. 146, 24001 (2024).
  8. A. Chilingarian, T. Karapetyan, B. Sargsyan, K. Asatryan, and G. Gabaryan, Influence of magnetosphere disturbances on particle fluxes measured by a ground-based detector, Europhys. Lett. 148, 19001 (2024).
  9. BOLTEK1, available online: https://www.boltek.com/EFM-100C_Manual_030323.pdf (accessed on January 1, 2024).
  10. V. A. Rakov and M. A. Uman, Lightning: Physics and Effects (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2003).
  11. ADEI: available online: https://crd.yerphi/ADEI (accessed on January 1, 2024).
  12. BOLTEK2, AVAILABLE online: https://www.boltek.com/product/ld350-long-range-detection-kit (accessed on January 1, 2024).
  13. LEMI, available online: https://www.isr.lviv.ua/lemi417.htm (accessed on January 1, 2024).
  14. A. Chilingarian, T. Karapetyan, B. Sargsyan, J. Knapp, M. Walter, and T. Rehm, Energy spectra of the first TGE observed on Zugspitze by the SEVAN light detector compared with the energetic TGE observed on Aragats, Astropart. Phys. 156, 02924 (2024).
  15. M. Zazyan and A. Chilingarian, Calculations of the sensitivity of the particle detectors of ASEC and SEVAN networks to galactic and solar cosmic rays, Astropart. Phys. 32, 185 (2009).
  16. H. V. Cane, Coronal mass ejections and Forbush decreases, Space Sci. Rev. 93, 55 (2000).
  17. G. A. Bazilevskaya, I. G. Usoskin, E. O. Flückiger et al., Cosmic ray induced ion production in the atmosphere, Space Sci. Rev. 137, 149 (2008).
  18. B. A. Tinsley, Electric charge modulation of aerosol scavenging in clouds: Rate coefficients with Monte Carlo simulation of diffusion, J. Geophys. Res. 115, D23211 (2010).
  19. D. M. Oliveira, E. Zesta, and S. Vidal-Luengo, First direct observations of interplanetary shock impact angle effects on actual geomagnetically induced currents: The case of the Finnish natural gas pipeline system, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 11, 1392697 (2024).
  20. C. R. A. Augusto, C. E. Navia, M. N. de Oliveira et al., The 2015 summer solstice storm: One of the major geomagnetic storms of solar cycle 24 observed at ground level, Sol. Phys. 293, 84 (2018).
  21. E. Astafyeva, I. Zakharenkova, and P. Alken, Prompt penetration of electric fields and the extreme topside ionospheric response to the June 22–23, 2015, geomagnetic storm as seen by the Swarm constellation, Earth Planets Space 68, 152 (2016).
  22. W. Li, T. Chen, C. Shen et al., Near-surface atmospheric electric field changes through magnetic clouds via coronal mass ejections, Geosci. Lett. 10, 45 (2023).
  23. A. Chilingarian, A. Daryan, K. Arakelyan, A. Hovhannisyan, B. Mailyan, L. Melkumyan, G. Hovsepyan, and L. Vanyan, Ground-based observations of thunderstorm-correlated fluxes of high-energy electrons, gamma rays, and neutrons, Phys. Rev. D 82, 043009 (2010).
  24. A. Chilingarian, B. Sargsyan, T. Karapetyan, D. Aslanyan, S. Chilingaryan, L. Kozliner, and Y. Khanikyanc, Extreme thunderstorm ground enhancements registered on Aragats in 2023, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063043 (2024).
  25. A. V. Gurevich, G. M. Milikh, and R. A. Roussel-Dupre, Runaway electron mechanism of air breakdown and preconditioning during a thunderstorm, Phys. Lett. 165A, 463 (1992).
  26. W. M. Farrell et al., The wind magnetic field investigation, Space Sci. Rev. 71, 207 (1995).
  27. A. Chilingarian, T. Karapetyan, B. Sargsyan, Y. Khanikyanc, and S. Chilingaryan, Measurements of particle fluxes, electric fields, and lightning occurrences at the aragats space-environmental center (ASEC), Pure Appl. Geophys. 181, 1963 (2024).
  28. ADEI, available online: http://adei.crd.yerphi.am/ (accessed on 1 April 2025).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation