Skip to main content
Log in

A Detailed Analysis of the Behavior of the F2-Layer Critical Frequency Prior to Magnetic Storms

  • Published:
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A detailed analysis of the dependence of the number of events (deviations of the critical frequency foF2 on the prestorm days from foF2 for quiet geomagnetic conditions) and their intensity on the intensity of the coming storm and solar activity is presented. In order to separate the effects of dependence on different parameters, the solar activity dependence was considered for narrow intervals of the Dst index, which characterizes the storm intensity, whereas the dependence on the storm intensity was considered for narrow intervals of the F10.7 index, which characterizes solar activity. The conclusions on the decrease in the number of these events at an increase in the negative values of Dst (intensification of the storm) and F10.7 (solar activity increase) have been confirmed. It has been found that for the vast majority of situations an increase in the intensity of the considered events at a storm intensification and a decrease at an increase in F10.7 are observed. The analysis of the dependence of the number of foF2 disturbances on the prestorm days with a separation of the effects of different days confirms the results of similar analysis performed by the authors earlier without the data separation on days. Moreover, it has been found that both the number of events (foF2 deviations) and their intensities decrease with distance from the time of the storm onset (with a transition from the zero day to other days).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 9.
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12.
Fig. 13.
Fig. 14.
Fig. 15.
Fig. 16.
Fig. 17.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Danilov, A.D., Discussion of the problem of ionospheric precursors of magnetic storms, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2021, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. S94–S102.

  2. Danilov, A.D. and Konstantinova, A.V., Ionospheric precursors of geomagnetic storms. 1. A review of the problem, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2019a, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 554–566.

  3. Danilov, A.D. and Konstantinova, A.V., Behavior of the ionospheric F region prior to geomagnetic storms, Adv. Space Res., 2019b, vol. 64, pp. 1375–1387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Danilov, A.D. and Konstantinova, A.V., Detailed analysis of the behavior of the F2-layer critical frequency prior to geomagnetic storms. 1. Seasonal variations, Geliogeofiz. Issled., 2020a, no. 28, pp. 3–12.

  5. Danilov, A.D. and Konstantinova, A.V., Detailed analysis of the behavior of the F2-layer critical frequency prior to geomagnetic storms. 2. Dependence on the time to the storm onset, Geliogeofiz. Issled., 2020b, no. 28, pp. 13–21.

  6. Danilov, A.D. and Konstantinova, A.V., Detailed analysis of the behavior of the F2-layer critical frequency prior to geomagnetic storms. 3. Dependence on the storm intensity, Geliogeofiz. Issled., 2021a, no. 29, pp. 24–29.

  7. Danilov, A.D. and Konstantinova, A.V., Detailed analysis of the behavior of the F2-layer critical frequency prior to geomagnetic storms. 4. Dependence on solar activity, Geliogeofiz. Issled., 2021b, no. 30, pp. 3–8.

  8. Danilov, A.D. and Konstantinova, A.V., Detailed analysis of the behavior of the F2-layer critical frequency prior to geomagnetic storms. 5. Dependence on the local time of storm onset, Geliogeofiz. Issled., 2021c, no. 30, pp. 15–21.

  9. Danilov, A.D. and Konstantinova, A.V., Behavior of foF2 prior to geomagnetic storms according to Slough and Juliusruh data, Adv. Space Res., 2021d, vol. 67, no. 12, pp. 4066–4077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Danilov, A.D. and Konstantinova, A.V., Detailed analysis of the behavior of the F2-layer critical frequency prior to geomagnetic storms. 6. Separation of the effects of storm intensity and solar activity (Juliusruh station), Geliogeofiz. Issled., 2022a, no. 33, pp. 3–11.

  11. Danilov, A.D. and Konstantinova, A.V., Detailed analysis of the behavior of the F2-layer critical frequency prior to geomagnetic storms. 7. Separation of the effects of storm intensity and solar activity (Slough station), Geliogeofiz. Issled., 2022b, no. 33, pp. 12–23.

  12. Danilov, A.D. and Konstantinova, A.V., Detailed analysis of the behavior of the F2-layer critical frequency prior to geomagnetic storms. 8. Intensity of precursors, Geliogeofiz. Issled., 2022c, no. 34, pp. 3–12.

  13. Danilov, A.D. and Konstantinova, A.V., Detailed analysis of the behavior of the F2-layer critical frequency prior to geomagnetic storms. 9. Dependence on storm intensity for different prestorm days, Geliogeofiz. Issled., 2022d, no. 34, pp. 13–26.

  14. Konstantinova A.V., Danilov A.D. Ionospheric precursors of magnetic storms. 2. Analysis of Slough station data, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2020, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 311–317.

  15. Konstantinova A.V., Danilov A.D. Ionospheric precursors of magnetic storms. 3. Analysis of Juliusruh station data, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2021, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 341–348.

  16. Leshchinskaya, T.Yu. and Mikhailov, V.V., SIMP-1 model: Mapping of foF2 monthly medians over the Northern Hemisphere, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2016, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 733–741.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. D. Danilov.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Translated by A. Danilov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Danilov, A.D., Konstantinova, A.V. A Detailed Analysis of the Behavior of the F2-Layer Critical Frequency Prior to Magnetic Storms. Geomagn. Aeron. 62, 590–606 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793222050036

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793222050036

Navigation