scholarly journals Erratum to “Assessment of the capabilities and applicability of ionospheric perturbation indices provided in Europe” [Adv. Space Res. 66 (2020) 546–562]

2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 919-920
Author(s):  
Claudia Borries ◽  
Volker Wilken ◽  
Knut Stanley Jacobsen ◽  
Alberto García-Rigo ◽  
Beata Dziak-Jankowska ◽  
...  
1984 ◽  
Vol 89 (A8) ◽  
pp. 6835 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. H. Wolcott ◽  
D. J. Simons ◽  
D. D. Lee ◽  
R. A. Nelson

2021 ◽  
Vol 126 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shun‐Rong Zhang ◽  
Philip J. Erickson ◽  
Juha Vierinen ◽  
Ercha Aa ◽  
William Rideout ◽  
...  

Geosciences ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 481
Author(s):  
Masashi Hayakawa ◽  
Jun Izutsu ◽  
Alexander Schekotov ◽  
Shih-Sian Yang ◽  
Maria Solovieva ◽  
...  

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the lithosphere–atmosphere–ionosphere coupling (LAIC) effects with the use of multiparameter precursor observations for two successive Japanese earthquakes (EQs) (with a magnitude of around 7) in February and March 2021, respectively, considering a seemingly significant difference in seismological and geological hypocenter conditions for those EQs. The second March EQ is very similar to the famous 2011 Tohoku EQ in the sense that those EQs took place at the seabed of the subducting plate, while the first February EQ happened within the subducting plate, not at the seabed. Multiparameter observation is a powerful tool for the study of the LAIC process, and we studied the following observables over a 3-month period (January to March): (i) ULF data (lithospheric radiation and ULF depression phenomenon); (ii) ULF/ELF atmospheric electromagnetic radiation; (iii) atmospheric gravity wave (AGW) activity in the stratosphere, extracted from satellite temperature data; (iv) subionospheric VLF/LF propagation data; and (v) GPS TECs (total electron contents). In contrast to our initial expectation of different responses of anomalies to the two EQs, we found no such conspicuous differences of electromagnetic anomalies between the two EQs, but showed quite similar anomaly responses for the two EQs. It is definite that atmospheric ULF/ELF radiation and ULF depression as lower ionospheric perturbation are most likely signatures of precursors to both EQs, and most importantly, all electromagnetic anomalies are concentrated in the period of about 1 week–9 days before the EQ to the EQ day. There seems to exist a chain of LAIC process (cause-and-effect relationship) for the first EQ, while all of the observed anomalies seem to occur nearly synchronously in time for the send EQ. Even though we tried to discuss possible LAIC channels, we cannot come to any definite conclusion about which coupling channel is plausible for each EQ.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
B. O. Ogunsua ◽  
A. Srivastava ◽  
J. Bian ◽  
X. Qie ◽  
D. Wang ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 122 (8) ◽  
pp. 9032-9044 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay Kumar ◽  
Wu Chen ◽  
Mingli Chen ◽  
Zhizhao Liu ◽  
R. P. Singh

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document