Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://www.kosmofizika.ru/pdf2/saa_e.pdf Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Mon May 4 07:24:42 2009 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Mon Oct 1 21:58:00 2012 Êîäèðîâêà:

ISSN 0016 7932, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 2008, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 165­174. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2008. Original Russian Text © L.L. Lazutin, S.N. Kuznetsov, 2008, published in Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiya, 2008, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 173­182.

Nature of Sudden Auroral Activations at the Beginning of Magnetic Storms
L. L. Lazutin and S. N. Kuznetsov
Skobeltsyn Research Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University, Vorob'evy gory, Moscow, 119899 Russia
Received May 16, 2007

Abstract--Certain large magnetic lays, registered by magnetometers in the auroral and subauroral zones simultaneously with SC instant and accompanying events, substantially differ from activations at the begin ning of auroral substorm. Such basic substorm elements as energy accumulation during the growth phase and breakup--activation in the localized region near midnight--are absent. During such sudden auroral activa tions (SAs), a disturbance begins in a wide sector of longitudes and latitudes. It is proposed to combine SAs into an individual class of magnetospheric disturbances. The particle acceleration and injection mechanism, which causes SAs, is considered. PACS numbers: 94.30.Lr; 94.20.Qq DOI: 10.1134/S0016793208020059

1. INTRODUCTION Studying magnetospheric substorms is still far from being finished; however, several characteristic sub storm elements have been established reliably. Energy accumulation in the magnetosphere, related to an enhancement of a large scale electric field and to a reconfiguration of the magnetosphere, is such an obligatory element. Magnetic field lines on the night side of the Earth stretch antisunward, and an enhanced convective electric field causes particles in the central plasma sheet to move toward the Earth and heats these particles; thus, the store of the magnetic and kinetic energies increases. The magnetosphere becomes unstable, and the substorm growth phase is replaced by the development of instability, magnetic field dipolarization, appearance of a current wedge, auroral brightening, and energetic particle accelera tion during a relatively prolonged (20­40 min) period of accumulation. These processes continue for 1­2 min in a narrow localized sector of the auroral mag netosphere from 2200 to 0200 MLT. Only subse quently, during the expansion phase, the disturbance region expands along latitude and longitude. These main substorm elements are absent in distur bances during sudden commencement (SC) of certain strong magnetic storms: energy is not accumulated, and disturbance is not localized and begins simulta neously from the midnight to dawn sectors. Neverthe less, these disturbances are usually considered among magnetospheric substorms owing to large magnitudes of magnetic bays. Yamauchi et al. [2004] for the first time noted that disturbances were unusual at the beginning of the magnetic storm of October 29, 2003.
Deceased.

Subsequently, Lazutin [2006] assumed that this unusual disturbance is independent of substorm acti vation and results from the precipitation of particles accelerated during their E â B injection toward the Earth. The virtual conference on magnetic storms was held in the Internet in November 2006. In the course of this conference, several researchers (including the authors of the present work) contended that such dis turbances differ from substorms and proposed to com bine these disturbances into an individual class: sud den auroral activations. We should note that the exist ence of two types of bursts during SC was referred to in the earlier works on auroral absorption [Osepyan, 1983, 1984; Lazutin et al., 1973]: SC impulse triggers substorm in some cases, and substorm is not observed in other cases. These cases of auroral electron precip itation without previous energy accumulation in the magnetosphere belong to SAs considered in the present work. Here, we present arguments for such an identifica tion of SAs as individual phenomena and propose the possible explanation of the processes proceeding dur ing SAs. We assume that researchers will continue studying the processes proceeding at the beginning of strong magnetic storms (specifically, the work [Kozyreva and Kleimenova, 2007] already appeared), and the remaining confusion between SAs and sub storms causes unnecessary complications. 2. ANALYSIS OF MEASUREMENTS 2.1. October 29, 2003 An extreme magnetic storm of October 29­31, 2003, was considered in detail in many works (see, e.g. [Panasyuk et al., 2004]); therefore, we only summarize

165


166

LAZUTIN, KUZNETSOV October 29, 2003 60 B, nT Bz, nT V, km/s sym , nT AE, nT 30 0 30 0 30 2000 1600 1200 800 0 - 100 - 200 - 300 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0000

0200

0400

0600

0800

1000

UT

Fig. 1. The solar wind and magnetic disturbances on October 29, 2003.

the data on the solar wind (see Fig. 1). We should note that, at the SC instant, the solar wind velocity sud denly changed simultaneously with a southward turn

X component, nT 500 0 - 500 - 1000

October 29, 2003

LOV DAWS

MCMU

- 1500 - 2000 0610

LRV

0615

0620

0625

UT

Fig. 2. Magnetograms of the auroral zone for October 29, 2003.

ing of Bz and with an increase in the Ae index of mag netic activity. Figure 2 shows the rate of an increase in magnetic activity and presents the H components of the magne tograms from four stations in the auroral zone during SC at 0612 UT on October 29, 2003. The coordinates of all stations used in the work are given in table. A minute later, the negative disturbance was not less than 400 nT at all stations; 2 min later, this disturbance was larger than 1000 nT at two stations. We should note that substorm activity was high 10­12 h before SC but decreased during the last 6 h, which can be identified as a substorm recovery phase. Figure 3 presents four IMAGE satellite photo graphs. A comparison of the first and second photo graphs, taken before SC, and the third photograph, made 2 min later, when all magnetograms already demonstrated that the deviation was larger than 400 nT, indicates that only the luminosity brightness changed, and the shape and position of auroras remained unchanged. It is interesting that a typical breakup--a localized burst of auroras not only in the midnight sector but also at other longitudes of the nightside oval--was absent. Only the fourth photo graph shows a certain local brightening near midnight, which can be associated with breakup. An extensive
Vol. 48 No. 2 2008

GEOMAGNETISM AND AERONOMY


NATURE OF SUDDEN AURORAL ACTIVATIONS

167

bay on the Lovozero magnetogram indicates that sub storm actually started developing beginning from that instant. However, a synchronous decrease in the H component, which was observed during several min utes after SC and indicates that particles precipitated into the ionosphere, was not related to this substorm but possibly prepared this phenomenon. An increase in the fluxes of electrons and protons was registered on several LANL geostationary satel lites, and a detailed consideration indicates that a dis turbance impulse moved from the dayside to the night side. Figure 4 presents the plots of electron enhance ment in the channels (~40 keV) of six satellites; left hand numerals indicate the local time of the sector where a satellite was located. In addition to the above time shift of the SC effect, the velocity of which approximately corresponds to that of the solar wind that flowed around the Earth's magnetosphere, it is also evident that the enhancement amplitude was maximal in the morning hours. This agrees with the fact that the maximal brightening of auroral was observed in the morning hours. An enhancement was absent in the dusk sector. 2.2. July 27, 2004 Before magnetic storm SC at 2249 UT on July 26, 2004, the solar wind velocity (V) was about 600 km/s, dynamic pressure (P) varied within 1­2 nPa, IMF B was lower than 5 nT, and Bz was close to zero (Fig. 5). After SC, the solar wind velocity increased to 900 km/s, dynamic pressure increased insignificantly, magnetic field abruptly increased to 20 nT, and IMF Bz strongly fluctuated and was mainly negative. Such solar wind characteristics remained to 0300 UT on July 27, when the solar wind pressure strongly changed. We assume that SC was caused by the shock front; the Earth was in the transition region until 0300 UT and entered into a coronal mass ejection (CME) only at 0300 UT. Before SC, the IMF Bz component was positive; i.e., the substorm growth phase was absent, and mag netic conditions were quiet. During SC, the magneto grams from the auroral and subauroral stations indi

Coordinates of used observatories Name of observatories Cape Chelyuskin Vise Island Dixon Island Tixie Bay Lovozero McMurdo Dawson Kiruna Leirvogur Narsarsuaq Port Balein Kakioka CCE VIZ DIK TIK LOV MCMU DAWS KIR LRV NAR PBQ KAK Geographic longitude 104.28 77.0 80.56 128.9 33.05 248.8 220.9 20.42 338.3 314.5 282.2 140.2 Corrected geomagnetic latitude 71.6 73.6 68.3 65.6 64.2 64.7 65.7 64.7 65.3 66.1 66.4 28.9

cated the beginning of a sharp bay. Figure 6, where the H components of the magnetograms from three sta tions are presented, indicates that the negative burst minimum was reached 2­4 min after SC. The mini mal value (800 nT) was registered in the dawn sector. In going to the dayside sector (Tixie Bay, 0700 LT; data are not presented), the negative bay was not more than 50 nT. SA was also not observed at Vize Island station, located in the dawn sector but at higher latitudes than Dixon Island station. Without a thorough analysis, this bay like disturbance could be associated with sub storm; however, the above circumstances allow us to classify this disturbance as SA. We also note that all stations registered a positive deviation of the magnetic field H component immedi ately after SC. Solovyev et al. [2003, 2006] indicated that the global reconfiguration of the current systems is observed during SC, and the local direction of the electrojet in the dawn sector is often eastward. The above examples indicate that, in the cases when SC causes an SA type disturbance, the following electron

0609:22

0611:25

0613:29

0615:32

UT

Fig. 3. The IMAGE photographs of auroras before and after SC that occurred at 0612 UT on October 29, 2003. GEOMAGNETISM AND AERONOMY Vol. 48 No. 2 2008


168

LAZUTIN, KUZNETSOV LANL, October 29, 2003, e 40 keV LT
6

10

11

105

13

104 07 103 16 102 04 10
1

20 100 0610

0611

0612

0613

0614

UT

Fig. 4. The SC effect in the first electron channels (50 keV) of the LANL satellites. Numerals on the left indicate the local time of the satellite position.

precipitation also results in the development of the westward electrojet. 2.3. January 21, 2005 Figure 7 presents the variations in the solar wind characteristics and geomagnetic activity indices before and after SC at 1711 UT on January 21, 2005. An increase in the solar wind velocity and pressure and the southward turning of Bz cause an abrupt bay like dis turbance with the Ae index larger than 2000 nT. The absence of a pronounced previous magnetic activity also allows us to consider this event among SA type disturbances. 2.4. May 15, 2005 An extremely large magnetic storm of May 15, 2005, had a complex time history. Two successive solar flares generated shocks that run one after another. As a result, the first SC at 0230 UT was followed by the 4 h period of a disturbed solar wind with a rapidly varying structure of the magnetic field and by a new pressure pulse at 0615 UT and transition of IMF Bz to negative values. Magnetic disturbances, registered at the global network of magnetometers, also had a rather complex structure. A disturbance at the SC instant, which is

considered among SAs, began at 0230 UT and was characterized by a sharp bay in the magnetic field H component at the noon and morning meridians (for more detail, see [Kozyreva and Kleimenova, 2007]). This event was also characterized by an increase in the solar wind velocity and pressure without a substantial change in the Bz component. The second shock approached the Earth at about 0600 UT and caused a powerful substorm disturbance, which is called super substorm by some researchers. It is quite possible that the effects typical of SA were also observed here; however, it is difficult to detect these effects in a pure form. The IMAGE satellite photo graphs of auroras demonstrated a localized auroral brightening near midnight, which was very similar to breakup. This allows us to doubt once again that this disturbance was related to SA. Several opinions about unusual disturbances observed on May 15 were expressed during the virtual conference on super substorms held in November 2006 [Super substorm ...]. Echer et al. [2006] charac terized the disturbance that occurred at 0230 UT as a usual substorm triggered by SC and the event observed at 0620 UT as a super substorm coincident with the superstorm. These researchers assumed that a search for the trigger of this superstorm indicate that this event was caused by a rapid change in pressure or Bz. According to Kozyra et al. [2006], the super sub storm began at 0942 UT and continued to 1130 UT, i.e., during the storm main phase (at a maximum). The third viewpoint [Lyons et al., 2006] coincides with our opinion. These researchers distinguished the class of "not substorms," caused by a dynamic pressure impact, and considered that the disturbance that occurred at 0230 UT belong to this class. The authors assume that the signatures of dynamic pressure distur bances are the absence of the preparation period, as a result of which a substorm is triggered, and a global enhancement of auroral activity and the DP2 current system without additional brightening in the region of the Harang discontinuity and without a substorm cur rent wedge. In contrast to the cases considered above, when the pressure jump was accompanied by the formation of the negative Bz values, these two phenomena can be separated for the event of May 15, 2005. The first dis turbance (at 0230 UT) occurred without a change of sign of the IMF vertical component, and we can state that all SA effects were caused only by a sudden change in the solar wind dynamic pressure. 2.5. March 24, 1991 At the instant of SC (0341 UT) of the magnetic storm that occurred on March 24, 1991, the CRRES satellite registered the appearance of newly acceler ated electrons and protons at L < 3 [Blake et al., 1992], which was interpreted as an injection with accelera
Vol. 48 No. 2 2008

GEOMAGNETISM AND AERONOMY


NATURE OF SUDDEN AURORAL ACTIVATIONS July 26­27, 2004 P, nPa 10 1 B, nT 20 10 0 10 0 - 10 - 20 1000 800 600 50 0 - 50 - 100 - 150 1500 1000 500 0 1800

169

AE, nT sym , nT

V, km/s;

Bz, nT

2100 SC

0000

0300 UT

Fig. 5. The solar wind and magnetic disturbances on July 26­27, 2004.

tion caused by an induction field of the SC impulse. We can anticipate that the effect of the E â B drift of outer belt electrons, which results in an SA class phe nomenon, should also be observed in the auroral zone. Figure 9 demonstrates the magnetograms from four magnetic stations, obtained at the instant indicated above. We are sure again that, 2 min after SC, the neg ative deviation in the field H component reached 500­ 1400 nT at an absolutely undisturbed field during the previous hours and minutes. 3. DISCUSSION A change in the solar wind dynamic pressure is considered as one of the main substorm triggers. Many researchers studied substorms triggered by an SC impulse. It was established that the substorm power depends on the duration of the previous period of energy accumulation in the magnetosphere: substorm triggering becomes easier and substorm power increases with increasing duration of the growth phase. The present work considers the disturbances with out a growth phase, when rapid changes in the solar wind during SC cause acceleration and injection of auroral particles, i.e., are the source of energy rather
GEOMAGNETISM AND AERONOMY Vol. 48 No. 2

than a simple trigger of a disturbance. The SA effect is evident and is observed at ones during only a few num ber of events. A cursory review of the magnetograms from the auroral stations, obtained during SCs of the

X component, nT 500 0 - 500 - 1000

July 26, 2004
CCE 06LT

LOV 01LT DIK 05LT

- 1500 2240 2250 2300 UT

Fig. 6. Auroral station magnetograms for July 26, 2004. 2008


170 100 10 1 30 20 10 0 20 0 20 1000 800 600 40 0 - 40 - 80 3000 2000 1000 0 16

LAZUTIN, KUZNETSOV January 21, 2005

AE, nT

sym, nT

V, km/s

Bz, nT

B, nT

P, nPa

18

20

22

UT

Fig. 7. The solar wind, ASE, and magnetic activity indices on January 21, 2005.

magnetic storms that occurred from August 2001 to June 2005, indicated that eight­ten (mainly very strong storms which are usually considered among extreme storms) of more than 50 moderate and strong storms (weaker than 100 nT) aroused suspicion. If statistics is insignificant, it is difficult to precisely determine what SC type and combination of changes in the solar wind cause SA. Figure 10 presents the SC plots according to the magnetograms from Kakioka observatory. It is clear that the magnetic field changed differently after SCs of different storms because the solar wind characteristics were different when a distur bance approached the Earth. Shock appearance in the near Earth space sometimes causes a short term com pression impulse. In other cases a shock is immedi ately followed by CME. The solar wind magnetic pres sure also behaves differently. It is necessary to perform an additional analysis, using a larger data base, in order to distinguish the main disturbing parameters or their combinations. It is natural to relate the acceleration mechanism to the appearance or enhancement of the electric field, associated with a rapid transition to large negative Bz values or with the field of SC induced by a magnetic impulse. The radial E â B shift of particles toward the Earth will cause betatron acceleration, which

increases the transverse energy and Fermi acceleration of the particle velocity longitudinal component. Acceleration effects during radial drift have been repeatedly discussed since the 1970th in the model of rapid particle transfer from the magnetotail, where the substorm energy is supposedly accumulated and is released into the inner magnetosphere. It has become clear that the main acceleration processes proceed in the quasitrapping region, such a transfer is not required for large distances, but a certain E â B shift exists during dipolarization and makes an additional contribution to particle acceleration. Moreover, this effect apparently explains plasma heating in the cen tral plasma sheet during the substorm growth phase. The effects of energetic particle precipitation dur ing the substorm growth phase were discussed as applied to the interpretation of increases in the auroral X ray emission measured on balloons during this sub storm phase. In contrast to impulsive bursts caused by injection of newly accelerated electrons with a soft energy spectrum, the energy spectrum of these increases was hard, and the precipitation character was sufficiently smooth, which was interpreted as the result of an additional acceleration of quasi trapped electrons during radial transfer due to the E â B drift in a disturbed convection electric field [Lazutin, 1986].
Vol. 48 No. 2 2008

GEOMAGNETISM AND AERONOMY


NATURE OF SUDDEN AURORAL ACTIVATIONS May 15, 2005 40 P, nPa 20 0 B, nT 40 20 0 20 0 - 20 - 40 - 60 900 600 100 0 - 100 - 200 - 300 2000 1000 0 0000 0200 0400 0600 0800 UT

171

AE, nT

sym, nT

V, km/s

Bz, nT

Fig. 8. The solar wind and magnetic disturbances on May 15, 2005.

One more allied class of phenomena is an addi tional acceleration of solar protons, registered by the ATS 1 geostationary satellite during SC at the begin ning of the magnetic storm of November 20, 1968 [Lanzerotti et al., 1971]. A similar effect, which caused the replenishment of the inner proton belt dur ing SC, was registered on the CRRES satellite on March 24, 1991 [Blake et al., 1992]. In the interpreta tion proposed in [Pavlov et al., 1993; Hudson et al., 1997], the leading role is assigned to the induction electric field, which is generated during SC. The effec tiveness of this process depends on the particle energy and time parameters of a compression impulse. If the particle magnetic drift velocity is low, acceleration can be replaced by adiabatic cooling at an opposite impulse sign. After the event of March 1991, the effect was not observed in the explicit form; however, the cases of registration of additional fluxes of protons with energies of several MeV during and after strong magnetic storms are attributed to this effect. Finally, enhancements of auroral absorption dur ing SC, which were thoroughly studied by Osepyan [1983, 1984], are directly related to the considered class of phenomena. It was obtained that the absorp
GEOMAGNETISM AND AERONOMY Vol. 48 No. 2

tion is related to precipitation of energetic electrons from the radiation belt outer shells under the action of magnetospheric compression, and the threshold B values are ~40­50 and ~20­30 nT in the dayside and nightside sectors, respectively. Thus, the radial transfer and acceleration of parti cles in the magnetosphere is a frequent phenomenon with rather diverse results and manifestations, which is natural since electric field sources, initial particle fluxes, and time and spatial characteristics of the pro cesses are various. Considering again SAs, we should discuss the relationship between the contributions of Fermi and betatron accelerations to the generation of a precipitating electron flux. It is evident that Fermi acceleration immediately leads to an increase in a par ticle flux in the loss cone, which is maintained by the conservation of the second adiabatic invariant when particles go to shorter field lines. However, this mech anism is effective when particles are transferred from the region of field lines stretched far into the magneto tail on dipole lines. In the region of quasi entrapment, where the main SA effect is observed, the field line length changes not so substantially as the magnetic field strength with decreasing distance to the Earth;
2008


172 X component, nT 500
KIR

LAZUTIN, KUZNETSOV

March 24, 1991

0 - 500 - 1000 - 1500 - 2000 0330

TIK PBQ LRV

limit, and the regime of strong diffusion begins. An abrupt enhancement of wave activity, observed during SC on May 15, 2005, by Kozyreva and Kleimenova [2007], confirms this assumption. Lazutin et al. [2007] analyzed acceleration of auroral electrons at the sub storm onset based on the CRRES satellite measure ments. A bay like disturbance with an amplitude of 400 nT was accompanied by an increase in the flux of electrons with an energy of 10­20 keV. Necessary acceleration was maintained by the betatron mecha nism at a twofold change in the magnetic field strength. This gives us the lower limit of particle trans fer during SC.
UT

0340

0350

Fig. 9. Auroral station magnetograms (H component) for March 24, 1991.

therefore, acceleration of a betatron type plays the main role in this region. The flux of newly accelerated electrons evidently exceeds the Kennel­Petschek
H, nT 100 50 0 - 50 - 100 0600 40 0 - 40 - 80 - 120 2230 150 100 50 0 1700 60 40 20 0 0230 0240 0250 1710 17.0

Electrons can be effectively accelerated only if an azimuthal electric field is generated or abruptly increases in the auroral magnetosphere. Two potential field sources exist: a large scale electric field, caused by an increase in the IMF Bz component, and an induction field related to an impulse of magneto spheric compression by a shock. In principle, both induction and convection fields can maintain the observed effect if a disturbance is suf

October 29, 2003

0610

0620

0630

0640

0650

0700

July 26, 2004

2240

2250

2300

2310

2320

2330

January 21, 2005 1730 1740 1750 1800

May 15, 2005 0300 UT 0310 0320 0330

Fig. 10. Magnetograms from Kakioka observatory during certain SCs of magnetic storms for which sufficiently complete data on the solar wind are available. GEOMAGNETISM AND AERONOMY Vol. 48 No. 2 2008


NATURE OF SUDDEN AURORAL ACTIVATIONS

173

ficiently powerful. It would be extremely important to separate the effect of these two sources. However, in the majority of the considered cases, such a separation is impossible because a joint action was observed, which possibly makes the effect stronger. In one case southward turning of Bz was not observed, so we can assume that injection and acceleration by a SC induc tion field can operate independently. When separating SA as a specific phenomenon dif ferent from substorms, we should note that a normal substorm with poleward expansion develops immedi ately after SA. This is not surprising because IMF Bz always remains negative after SC too. Development of SA as if plays the role of a growth phase. Therefore, the following problem arises: when does the resultant electric field appear in the magnetosphere after the southward turning of Bz? If the electric field is gener ated as a result of untwisting of a convective plasma vortex, this process proceeds during not less than 10­ 15 min. If the appearance of the electric field is the instantaneous response to distortion of the magneto spheric structure [Antonova, 1981], the time of this appearance decreases to a minute. The development of a normal substorm with a prolonged growth phase does not make it possible to separate these two scenar ios. The manner of the electric field appearance (instantaneous or gradual) is inessential for the devel opment of convective transport. On the contrary, the entire process of SA proceeds for several minutes, and the following substorm active phase develops immedi ately after the previous phase; therefore, slow appear ance of a convection electric field disagrees with observations. 4. CONCLUSIONS Rapid changes in the solar wind parameters can trigger a magnetospheric substorm if the growth phase was observed previously; i.e., if the store of energy accumulated in the magnetosphere was sufficiently large. At the beginning of certain strong magnetic storms, the energy of sudden impulses is sufficient for SC to instantaneously cause considerable disturbances in the magnetic field and auroral luminosity without the preliminary phase of accumulation. One should not confuse these disturbances with substorms, con vective disturbances, or super substorms. According to the time and spatial characteristics and physical ori gin, these disturbances should be combined into the individual category called by us sudden auroral activa tions (SAs). The main SA signatures are the absence of a previ ous substorm growth phase and rapid (during 1­3 min) development of a bay like disturbance with the amplitude larger than 400 nT at the network of auroral and subauroral magnetometers in the wide midnight­ dawn sector of the magnetosphere.
GEOMAGNETISM AND AERONOMY Vol. 48 No. 2

We propose to explain the observed disturbances by precipitation of electrons, accelerated during their rapid radial injection toward the Earth in the course of the E â B drift, from the region of quasi entrapment. We assume that an impulsive electric field is generated when the IMF Bz sign changes from positive to nega tive or is induced by the impulse of compression of the Earth's magnetic field. It is necessary to perform addi tional studies in order to estimate the effectiveness of one or another effect or the combination of these effects. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to the staff of the geophysical obser vatories, the magnetic data from which were obtained on the AANII, PGI, CANOPUS, IMAGE, and WDC web sites. We are also grateful to the LANL staff for presented data on fluxes of energetic particles. This work was partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project no. 06 05 64225. REFERENCES
1. E. E. Antonova, "On the Cause of the Linear Depen dence of the Field Aligned Electron Flux from the Ion osphere on the Longitudinal Potential Drop," Geo magn. Aeron. 21 (6), 1004­1008 (1981). 2. J. B. Blake, W. A. Kolasinski, R. W. Fillius, and E. G. Mullen, "Injection of Electrons and Protons with Energies of Tens of MeV into L > 4 on 24 March, 1991," Geophys. Res. Lett. 19, 821­839 (1992). 3. E. Echer, L. Fernando, L. Guarnieri, et al., http://workshops.jhuapl.edu/s1/conf/wind magneto sphere/echer 01.pdf 4. M. K. Hudson, S. R. Elkington, J. G. Lyon, et al., "Simulations of Proton Radiation Belt Formation dur ing Storm Sudden Commencements," J. Geophys. Res. 102, 14 087­14 102 (1997). 5. J. U. Kozyra, M. W. Liemohn, X. Cai, et al., http://workshops.jhuapl.edu/s1/conf/magnetosphere ionosphere/kozyra 01/kozyra 01.pdf. 6. O. V. Kozyreva and N. G. Kleimenova, "Geomagnetic Pulsations and Magnetic Disturbances during the Ini tial Phase of a Strong Magnetic Storm of May 15, 2005," Geomagn. Aeron. 47 (4), 501­511 (2007) [Geomagn. Aeron. 47, 470­480 (2007)]. 7. L. J. Lanzerotti, C. G. McLennen, and M. F. Robbins, "Proton Drift Echoes in the Magnetosphere," J. Geo phys. Res. 76, 259­269 (1971). 8. L. Lazutin, "On the Storm­Substorm Relation Prob lems," in Proceedings of the SEE 2 International Con ference, Nor Amberd, Armenia, 2006, pp. 67­78. 9. L. L. Lazutin, "X Ray Emission of Auroral Electrons and Magnetospheric Dynamics," Phys. Chem. Space 14, 220 (1986). 10. L. L. Lazutin, A. O. Mel'nikov, and A. P. Osepyan, "Particle Precipitation into the Earth's Atmosphere during Sudden Commencements of Geomagnetic
2008


174

LAZUTIN, KUZNETSOV Storms," Issled. Geomagn. Aeron. Avroral'noi Zony, 101­109 (1973). ticle Flux during a Strong Magnetic Storm of March 24, 1991," Geomagn. Aeron. 33 (6), 41­45 (1993). S. I. Solovyev, A. V. Moiseyev, E. S. Barkova, et al., "Global Geomagnetic and Auroral Response to Varia tions in the Solar Wind Dynamic Pressure on April 1, 1997," Geomagn. Aeron. 46 (1), 44­54 (2006) [Geo magn. Aeron. 46, 41­51 (2006)]. S. I. Solovyev, A. V. Moiseyev, K. Yumoto, and M. Engebretson, "Characteristics of Magnetospheric­ Ionospheric Disturbances during an Increase of the Solar Wind Dynamic Pressure," Geomagn. Aeron. 43 (5), 620­634 (2003) [Geomagn. Aeron. 43, 579­592 (2003)]. Super Substorm Events from May and August of 2005, http://workshops.jhuapl.edu/s1 M. Yamauchi, T. Sergienko, I. Haggstrom, et al., "Unusual Geomagnetic and Geoelectric Behavior dur ing the Initial Phase of 2003 10 29 Storm," in Proceed ings of the International Conference Substorm 7, Hels inki, 2004, Ed. by N. Ganushkina and T. Pulkkinen, pp. 232­236.

11. L. L. Lazutin, T. V. Kozelova, N. P. Meredit, et al., "Studying the Substorm of March 12, 1991. 2. Auroral Electrons. Acceleration, Injection, and Dynamics," Kosm. Issled. 45 (2), 1­9 (2007). 12. L. Lyons, S. Zou, D. Y. Lee, et al., http://work shops.jhuapl.edu/s1/conf/wind magnetosphere/ lyons 01/lyons 01.pdf 13. A. P. Osepyan, "Polar Magnetic Disturbances after SC," Ionos. Issled., No. 35, 56­62 (1983). 14. A. P. Osepyan, Candidate's Dissertation in Physics and Mathematics (Leningrad, 1984). 15. M. I. Panasyuk, S. N. Kuznetsov, L. L. Lazutin, et al., "Magnetic Storms in October 2003. Collaboration "Extreme Solar Events in 2003 (SES 2003)"," Kosm. Issled. 42 (5), 489­534 (2004). 16. N. N. Pavlov, L. V. Tverskaya, B. A. Tverskoy, and E. A. Chuchkov, "Variations in the Radiation Belt Par

17.

18.

19. 20.

GEOMAGNETISM AND AERONOMY

Vol. 48

No. 2

2008