Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 17 references

Influence of ICME-driven Magnetic Cloud-like and Sheath Region induced Geomagnetic Storms in causing anomalous responses of the Low-latitude Ionosphere: A Case Study

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the 31 October 2021 weak geomagnetic storm produced a ~20 TECU enhancement in low-latitude Indian-sector TEC because the ICME's magnetic-cloud-like region supplied a steady, non-fluctuating southward IMF $B_z$…

desk verdict A real two-event contrast with a plausible but under-supported DC/AC mechanism claim; the internal inconsistency about whether the key day had fluctuating Bz needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14659 v1 pith:P5BLYTDN submitted 2024-12-19 physics.space-ph astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRphysics.ao-phphysics.geo-phphysics.plasm-ph

Sumanjit Chakraborty , Dibyendu Chakrabarty , Anil K. Yadav , Gopi K. Seemala This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRphysics.ao-phphysics.geo-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords geomagneticstormlow-latitudeionospheretotalelectroncontentpromptpenetrationelectricfieldequatorialelectrojetICMEsheathmagneticcloudionizationanomaly
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that for low-latitude ionospheric electrodynamics, it is the steadiness of the southward interplanetary magnetic field, not the overall strength of the geomagnetic storm, that decides how strongly the ionosphere responds. Comparing two events driven by interplanetary coronal mass ejections over the Indian sector, it finds a weak storm on 31 October 2021 produced about 20 total-electron-content units of daytime enhancement near the crest of the equatorial ionization anomaly, while a much stronger storm on 4 November 2021 produced no comparable enhancement. The paper attributes this difference to the weak event sampling a magnetic-cloud-like region—a smooth, slowly rotating magnetic structure inside the ICME—with a steady southward IMF $B_z$, which generated a stable prompt penetration electric field that strengthened the equatorial electrojet and plasma fountain, while the strong event sampled the turbulent ICME sheath with fluctuating $B_z$, which generated counter-electrojets and suppressed the fountain. A sympathetic reader should care because this is a concrete counterexample to the usual assumption that storm intensity or IMF magnitude predicts ionospheric impact, with a direct implication for space-weather forecasting of low latitudes.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the prompt penetration electric field (PPEF)—the magnetospheric convection electric field that reaches low and equatorial latitudes while IMF $B_z$ is southward—inferred from the residual equatorial electrojet (EEJ): the daytime difference between an equatorial and an off-equatorial ground magnetometer, with the quiet-day curve subtracted. The paper aligns time-lag-corrected IMF $B_z$ with the residual EEJ to separate a steady (DC) penetration pattern, signaled by sustained positive residual EEJ, from a fluctuating (AC) pattern, signaled by counter-electrojets. The magnetic-cloud-like region supplies the DC case; the sheath supplies the AC case.

What would settle it

A direct vertical-drift measurement over the Indian sector on a comparable weak-storm day with non-fluctuating southward IMF would falsify the mechanism if no upward $E\times B$ drift accompanied the positive residual electrojet; recomputing the quiet-day baseline from alternative quiet days and finding that the 31 October TEC excess disappears would falsify the event-level comparison.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the same ICME can produce opposite low-latitude ionospheric outcomes depending on which substructure hits Earth. During the weak storm of 31 October 2021, the southward IMF $B_z$ stayed non-fluctuating for a sufficient interval, the residual equatorial electrojet stayed positive through the daytime, and total electron content at a low-latitude station near the northern crest of the equatorial ionization anomaly rose about 20 TECU above quiet time. During the stronger storm of 4 November 2021, the sheath region's rapidly fluctuating $B_z$ produced an alternating penetration electric field and counter-electrojets, suppressing the plasma fountain despite a SYM-H minimum near $-118$ nT. The paper concludes that neither storm intensity nor IMF $B_z$ magnitude controls low-latitude ionospheric response; what matters is a non-fluctuating southward $B_z$ for a sufficient time, in tandem with poleward neutral wind, generating stable prompt penetration electric fields. A standard global coupled model driven by Kp and solar flux produces the opposite TEC ordering and does not capture the observed enhancement.

Load-bearing premise

The causal story depends on interpreting the residual equatorial electrojet on 31 October as a direct signature of a penetration electric field produced by the steady southward IMF, with no direct electric-field or vertical-drift measurement confirming the link, and on assuming the two events differ only in $B_z$ steadiness rather than in background solar flux, local-time coverage, or quiet-day baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ionospheric impact at low latitudes cannot be read off SYM-H or peak southward $B_z$; a weak storm with steady $B_z$ can outperform a strong storm with fluctuating $B_z$.
  • ICME sheath intervals with rapidly varying $B_z$ can suppress the equatorial plasma fountain through counter-electrojets even while driving a strong ring-current enhancement.
  • Forecast models for low-latitude TEC would need the duration of non-fluctuating southward $B_z$ as an input; the paper's model comparison indicates current Kp-driven global simulations miss such events.
  • Poleward neutral wind strength modulates the crest-region TEC, so electrodynamic and neutral dynamics must be treated together when assessing event geoeffectiveness.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural quantitative extension is to define a 'steadiness index' for southward $B_z$—for instance the longest continuous interval below a fixed threshold—and test whether it orders low-latitude TEC response across many storms better than SYM-H.
  • If the mechanism holds, space-weather products for equatorial and crest regions should issue alerts based on $B_z$ continuity rather than storm magnitude alone; this is testable against existing multi-event TEC archives.
  • Because only two events and two satellites are used, the claim would be strengthened or weakened by a multi-longitude survey: steady-$B_z$ intervals should consistently enhance TEC near the EIA crest, and fluctuating-$B_z$ intervals should not, across sectors.
  • The paper's residual-EEJ diagnostic suggests a direct check with vertical-drift measurements in the Indian sector: a steady southward $B_z$ interval should produce an observable upward $E\times B$ drift at the magnetic equator.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares the low-latitude ionospheric response to two ICME-driven events over the Indian sector: a weak geomagnetic storm on 31 October 2021 (SYM-H minimum about -41 nT, attributed to an MC-like region) and a stronger storm on 4 November 2021 (SYM-H minimum -118 nT, attributed to a sheath region). Using NavIC GEO TEC at Ahmedabad, GPS TEC at Hyderabad and Bengaluru, and EEJ from Tirunelveli-Alibag, the authors report an anomalously large TEC enhancement of about 20 TECU on 31 October and no comparable enhancement on 4 November, despite the latter being the stronger storm. They argue that neither SYM-H nor the magnitude of southward IMF Bz determines the low-latitude response; instead, the occurrence of a 'non-fluctuating' southward Bz for a 'sufficient interval of time' produced a stable (DC) prompt penetration electric field that strengthened the equatorial electrojet and the EIA fountain, while the fluctuating (AC) Bz in the sheath region on 4 November inhibited the fountain. Supportive but not confirmatory evidence includes SME index, GUVI O/N2 maps, WACCM-X meridional winds, and a TIEGCM run that fails to reproduce the observed enhancement.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would add a useful case-based argument that low-latitude ionospheric storm effects depend not only on geomagnetic storm intensity but on the steadiness and duration of southward IMF Bz, with implications for space-weather forecasting and for targeted model improvements. The study is based on multiple independent data sources (NavIC, GPS, EEJ, OMNI, SME, GUVI) and includes an explicit model comparison, which are strengths. The main limitation is that the key causal distinction between 'DC' and 'AC' penetration is inferred from a two-event comparison, and the manuscript does not provide an objective, quantitative definition of these terms or directly measure the penetration electric field. Because the pivotal physical mechanism is not directly constrained, the result should be treated as an interesting hypothesis supported by a case study rather than a demonstrated general rule.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4 vs. Section 3.3 / Figure 8] There is a direct internal inconsistency in the central distinction of the paper. Section 4 states that on 31 October the IMF Bz was 'steady, non-fluctuating,' while Section 3.3 and the Figure 8 caption describe panel (b) as showing 'a fluctuating (or AC) penetration electric field' on the same day. Since the entire causal argument rests on contrasting a non-fluctuating (DC) event with a fluctuating (AC) event, the manuscript must resolve this contradiction. Please clarify which description is intended and ensure the text, figures, and summary use one consistent characterization for each day.
  2. [Sections 3.3, 4, and 5] The terms 'non-fluctuating Bz' and 'sufficient interval of time' are used repeatedly but never defined with a measurable metric. For example, no threshold on Bz variance, zero-crossing rate, or sustained southward interval is given, nor is any such metric computed for the two days. As written, the 'sufficient interval' appears to be determined after observing the TEC/EEJ response, which makes the argument vulnerable to circularity. Please quantify the fluctuation level and the duration of sustained southward Bz for both 31 October and 4 November, and test whether the proposed DC/AC classification survives an objective criterion.
  3. [Section 3.3, Figures 8 and 4] The residual EEJ is used as the principal evidence for a penetration electric field, but no direct measurement of the east-west electric field or vertical E×B drift is presented. The residual EEJ could in principle reflect a disturbance dynamo, local neutral-wind changes, or a non-representative quiet-day baseline rather than a prompt penetration field. Given that the TIEGCM simulation does not reproduce the enhancement, the manuscript currently lacks independent support for attributing the EEJ residual specifically to PPEF. Please add a quantitative discussion of the expected disturbance-dynamo contribution during 31 October and, if possible, compare the EEJ residual with available vertical-drift estimates or with high-resolution electric-field proxies.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Figure 5] The quiet-time baseline is the mean of 27-29 October 2021, but the analysis period includes days with different solar flux (F10.7 is 110.3 on 28 October versus 101.2 on 31 October) and the day-to-day variability of the ionosphere is not fully quantified. The claimed 20 TECU enhancement is measured against this short baseline, so a mis-selected baseline could bias the anomaly estimate. Please provide a more robust quiet-time reference (for example, a longer quiet interval or a sliding quiet-day average) and show that the enhancement exceeds not only the 1-sigma day-to-day spread but also the expected solar-flux-driven variation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3, Figure 9] The text near Figure 9 refers to '13:30 UT on November 31, 2021,' which should be 'October 31, 2021'; please correct this typo.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figures 3 and 4] The text refers to 'panel (o)' in Figures 3 and 4, but those figures show panels (a)-(l) only; the intended panel reference should be corrected.
  3. [Section 4, Figure references] In the paragraph discussing residual EEJ during 08:00-16:00 LT, the text says 'This aspect is observed in Figure 6,' but Figure 6 shows WACCM-X meridional winds, not residual EEJ; the correct reference appears to be Figure 8. Similarly, the statement that compositional effects 'can be ruled out from Figure 8' should probably refer to Figures 10 and 11, which display the O/N2 maps.
  4. [Section 2, Equation (1)] The mapping function in equation (1) should specify that the elevation angle θ is in radians or that the expression is valid for the geometric configuration described; the current notation is ambiguous.
  5. [General] Several references to 'Figure 8' in the text appear to be interchanged with other figure numbers (see the third minor comment); a careful pass to harmonize all figure callouts with the actual panels would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claims rest on independent external observations; the unquantified Bz-steadiness classification and Fig. 8 wording are correctness/rigor concerns, not circular reductions.

full rationale

This is an observational case study, not a derivation. The TEC (NavIC/GPS), EEJ, OMNI IMF/SYM-H, SME, GUVI O/N2, and TIEGCM/WACCM-X outputs are all external to the claim; no parameter is fitted to the target quantity and then renamed as a prediction. The time-lag correction for IMF Bz is taken from Chakrabarty et al. (2005), a solar-wind propagation calibration that is not the target claim and is not tuned to force the TEC result. The central inference that a steady southward Bz for a sufficient interval promotes a DC prompt-penetration electric field and strengthens the equatorial fountain is an interpretation of two event comparisons, not an equation that reduces to its own inputs. The paper does not quantitatively define 'non-fluctuating' or 'sufficient interval,' and the Fig. 8 caption's phrase 'fluctuating (or AC) penetration electric field' for Oct 31 sits awkwardly against Sec. 4's 'steady, non-fluctuating' description; however, that is an internal-consistency/rigor concern, not evidence that a prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. Self-citations (e.g., Chakrabarty et al. 2005; Rout et al. 2018) provide context and method, but the load-bearing observations are independent measurements.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on standard TEC mapping, baseline selection, solar wind lag propagation, and the assumed PPEF-EEJ relationship, none of which is fitted to force the observed TEC contrast.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Thin-shell ionospheric mapping at 350 km altitude converts STEC to VTEC.
    Equations (1)-(2) in Section 2. The standard shell model and elevation mask affect the absolute TEC values and day-to-day comparisons.
  • ad hoc to paper The quiet-day mean of 27-29 October 2021 is a valid baseline for anomaly detection.
    Section 3.3. The reported roughly 20 TECU enhancement and its significance depend on this baseline and the 1-sigma threshold.
  • domain assumption Time-lagged IMF Bz from L1 can be mapped to the ionosphere for direct comparison with EEJ.
    Section 3.3 and Figure 8, following Chakrabarty et al. (2005). The lag is not independently validated for this specific event.
  • domain assumption Positive residual EEJ indicates a penetration electric field that strengthens the equatorial fountain.
    Section 4. The link is inferred from prior literature; no direct electric field or vertical drift observation is presented.
  • domain assumption SME and GUVI O/N2 data are sufficient to rule out substorm and composition drivers.
    Figures 9-11. This ruling-out depends on index thresholds and snapshot maps being representative of the full storm periods.
  • domain assumption WACCM-X meridional winds are representative enough for comparing the two days.
    Section 3.3 and Figure 6. The authors note WACCM-X underestimates wind magnitudes and may miss abrupt changes, so the 16 versus 32 m/s difference is approximate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Influence of ICME-driven Magnetic Cloud-like and Sheath Region induced Geomagnetic Storms in causing anomalous responses of the Low-latitude Ionosphere: A Case Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5BLYTDN

@misc{pith2026241214659,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Influence of ICME-driven Magnetic Cloud-like and Sheath Region induced Geomagnetic Storms in causing anomalous responses of the Low-latitude Ionosphere: A Case Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5BLYTDN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14659}
}
abstract

This work shows an anomalously enhanced response of the low-latitude ionosphere over the Indian sector under weak geomagnetic conditions (October 31, 2021) in comparison to a stronger event (November 04, 2021) under the influence of an Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection (ICME)-driven Magnetic Cloud (MC)-like and sheath regions respectively. The investigation is based on measurements of the Total Electron Content (TEC) from Ahmedabad (23.06$^\circ$N, 72.54$^\circ$E, geographic; dip angle: 35.20$^\circ$), a location near the northern crest of the Equatorial Ionization Anomaly (EIA) over the Indian region. During the weaker event, the observed TEC from the Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites of Navigation with Indian Constellation (NavIC), showed diurnal maximum enhancements of about 20 TECU over quiet-time variations, as compared to the stronger event where no such enhancements are present. It is shown that storm intensity (SYM-H) or magnitude of the southward Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) alone is unable to determine the ionospheric impacts of this space weather event. However, it is the non-fluctuating southward IMF and the corresponding penetration electric fields, for a sufficient interval of time, in tandem with the poleward neutral wind variations, that determines the strengthening of low-latitude electrodynamics of this anomalous event of October 31, 2021. Therefore, the present investigation highlights a case for further investigations of the important roles played by non-fluctuating penetration electric fields in determining a higher response of the low-latitude ionosphere even if the geomagnetic storm intensities are significantly low.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14659 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot showing IPP (geographic and geomagnetic) latitude (Lat) and longitude (Lon) footprints of NavIC satellite PRNs 2-7 over Ahmedabad. PRNs 2, 3, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure panels (a) to (f) show the IMFs |B|, Bx, By, Bz , the IEFy and the SYM-H (nT) variations respectively. In the same figure, panels (g) to (l) show the Proton Temperature, the Vsw, the Proton Density, the Flow Pressure, the PC index, and the β respectively between October 29 and November 05, 2021. The period of the weak and the strong geomagnetic storm occurrences are shown as violet- and peach-shaded regions r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variations of NavIC VTEC for PRN 3 (panels (a), (b), (c), (d)), for PRN 6 (panels (e), (f), (g), (h)), along with the EEJ variations (panels (i), (j), (k), (l)) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same depiction as Figure 3 but observed during November 02-05, 2021. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: IGS GPS TEC variation over Hyderabad (HYDE, Top) and Bengaluru (IISC, Bottom) observed from October 29 to November 05, 2021. The red curves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Meridional wind (m/s) variations (positive signifying poleward-directed wind) from WACCM-X during October 31 (blue) and November 04 (red), 2021 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: TIEGCM simulation results showing the TEC variations over Ahmedabad on a quiet day (October 28, 2021: green curve), on October 31, 2021 (blue curve), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Individual day (red curve) along with quiet time variation (blue curve) of EEJ on (a) October 31, 2021, and (c) November 04, 2021. Variations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The SME (nT) variation from October 29 to November 05, 2021. The cyan-shaded region indicates the day of October 31, 2021, while the pink-shaded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The GUVI O/N2 global maps on October 31 (top), and November 04 (bottom), 2021. The red circles marked on these maps show the Indian region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same depiction as Figure 9 but observed on October 28, 2021. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdu, M. A. (1997). Major phenomena of the equatorial ionosphere-thermosphere system under disturbed conditions.Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 59(13), 1505–1519. Abdu, M. A., Walker, G. O., Reddy, B. M. et al. (1990). Electric field versus neutral wind control of the equatorial anomaly under quiet and disturbed condition: A global p...

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Nishida, A. (1968a). Geomagnetic Dp 2 fluctuations and associated magnetospheric phenomena. Journal of Geophysical Research, 73(5), 1795–1803. Nishida, A. (1968b). Coherence of DP2 fluctuations with interplanetary magnetic field variations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 73(17), 5549–5559. Ravi Kumar, M., Sridhar, M., Venkata Ratnam, D. et al. (2019). E...

    work page 1968

  3. [4]

    Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 53(3), 275–290

    A review. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 53(3), 275–290. URL: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793213030031. doi:10.1134/S0016793213030031. Blanc, M., & Richmond, A. (1980). The ionospheric disturbance dynamo. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics , 85(A4), 1669–1686. URL: https: //agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JA085iA04p01669. doi:http...

    arXiv 1980

  4. [5]

    Chakraborty, S., & Datta, A

    URL: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AGUFMSA0210020C. Chakraborty, S., & Datta, A. (2021). Study of Low-latitude Ionospheric Scintillation using NavIC. In 2021 XXXIVth General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS) (pp. 1–3). doi: 10.23919/URSIGASS51995.2021.9560192. Chakraborty, S., & Datta, A. (20...

    arXiv 2021

  5. [6]

    D., & Fang, T.-W

    Richmond, A. D., & Fang, T.-W. (2015). Electrodynamics of the equatorial evening ionosphere:

    work page 2015

  6. [7]

    Kumar, A., Chakrabarty, D., Fejer, B. G. et al. (2023). A case of anomalous electric field perturbations in the equatorial ionosphere during postsunset hours: Insights. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics , 128(2), e2022JA030826. URL: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1029/2022JA030826. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030826...

    work page doi:10.1029/2022ja030826 2023

  7. [8]

    Lissa, D., Venkatesh, K., Prasad, D. et al. (2021). GPS TEC variations under quiet and disturbed geomagnetic conditions during the descending phase of 24th solar cycle over the Indian equatorial and low latitude regions. Advances in Space Research, 68(4), 1836–1849. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0273117721003069. doi:https://doi...

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [12]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120(3), 2133–2147

    conductivity influences on convection, current, and electrody- namic energy flow. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120(3), 2133–2147. URL: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1002/2014JA020935. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020935. Richmond, A. D., Fang, T.-W., & Maute, A. (2015). Electrodynamics of the equatorial evenin...

    work page doi:10.1002/2014ja020935 2015

Show all 17 references
  1. [13]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120(3), 2118–2132

    importance of winds in di fferent regions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120(3), 2118–2132. URL: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2014JA020934. Chakraborty, S., et. al / ASR xx (2024) xxx-xxx 21 doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020934....

    2024 doi

  2. [21]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6216

    URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ ab6216. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6216. Sharat, C. B., Anurag, V ., Baljit, J. et al. (2017). Study of temporal variation of vertical TEC using NavIC data. International Conference on Emerging Trends in Computing and Communication Techn...

    2017

  3. [28]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac204

    URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aac204. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac204. Shim, J. S. (2009). Analysis of total electron content (tec) variations in the low- and middle-latitude ionosphere.All Graduate Theses and Dissertations, 403, 1–113. doi:https://digitalcommons.usu....

    2009 doi

  4. [34]

    doi:10.1007/s11207-023-02127-4

    URL: https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11207-023-02127-4 . doi:10.1007/s11207-023-02127-4 . Dungey, J. W. (1961). Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones. Physical Review Letters, 6, 47–48. Fejer, B., & Scherliess, L. (1997). Mid-and low-latitude prompt penetration ionosph...

    1961

  5. [61]

    Nava, B., Rodríguez-Zuluaga, J., & , K

    doi:10.4401/ag-7856. Nava, B., Rodríguez-Zuluaga, J., & , K. A.-C. (2016). Middle- and low-latitude ionosphere response to 2015 St. Patrick’s Day geomagnetic storm. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 3421–3438. Ngwira, C. M., McKinnel, L. A., P.J.Cilliers et ...

    2016 doi

  6. [86]

    Annales Geophysicae, 8, 419–430. Ahn, B. H., Akasofu, S. I., & Kamide, Y . (1983). The Joule heat production rate and the particle energy injection rate as a function of the geomagnetic indices AE and AL. Journal of Geophysical Research, 88(8), 6275–6287. Appleton, E. V . (194...

    1983

  7. [121]

    Rout, D., Chakrabarty, D., Sarkhel, S. et al. (2018). The Ionospheric Impact of an ICME-Driven Sheath Region Over Indian and American Sectors in the Absence of a Typical Geomagnetic Storm. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics , 123(5), 4298–4308. URL: https://agupubs...

    2018 doi

  8. [1880]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(97) 00005-9

    URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682697000059. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(97) 00005-9. Rodrigues, F. S., Crowley, G., Heelis, R. A. et al. (2012). On tie-gcm simulation of the evening equatorial plasma vortex. Journal of Geophysical Rese...

    2012 doi

  9. [2020]

    Ayyagari, D., Chakraborty, S., Datta, A

    URL: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AGUFMSM0030008A. Ayyagari, D., Chakraborty, S., Datta, A. et al. (2021). Impact of intense geomagnetic storm on navic signals over indore. In N. R. Das, & S. Sarkar (Eds.),Computers and Devices for Communication (pp. 157–162). Singapo...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.