4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Impact of different energies of precipitating particles on NOx generation in the middle and upper atmosphere during geomagnetic storms

期刊

JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS
卷 71, 期 10-11, 页码 1176-1189

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2008.07.005

关键词

Solar wind; Geomagnetic storms; Energetic precipitation; Nitric oxide; Ozone

资金

  1. NERC [bas0100023] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [bas0100023] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Energetic particle precipitation couples the solar wind to the Earth's atmosphere and indirectly to Earth's climate. Ionisation and dissociation increases, due to particle precipitation, create odd nitrogen (NOx) and odd hydrogen (HOx) in the upper atmosphere, which can affect ozone chemistry. The long-lived NOx can be transported downwards into the stratosphere, particularly during the polar winter. Thus, the impact of NOx is determined by both the initial ionisation production, which is a function of the particle flux and energy spectrum, as well as transport rates. In this paper, we use the Sodankyla ion and Neurtal Chemistry (SIC) model to simulate the production of NOx from examples of the most representative particle flux and energy spectra available today of solar proton events (SPE), auroral energy electrons, and relativistic electron precipitation (REP). Large SPEs are found to produce higher initial NOx concentrations than long-lived REP events, which themselves produce higher initial NOx levels than auroral electron precipitation. Only REP microburst events were found to be insignificant in terms of generating NOx. We show that the Global Ozone Monitoring by Occultation of Stars (GOMOS) observations from the Arctic winter 2003-2004 are consistent with NOx generation by a combination of SPE, auroral altitude precipitation, and long-lived REP events. Crown Copyright (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据