Иркутск, Россия
Иркутск, Россия
Иркутск, Россия
Иркутск, Россия
Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Якутск, Россия
Новосибирск, Россия
Паратунка, Россия
Екатеринбург, Россия
Москва, Россия
Калининград, Калининградская область, Россия
We study the spatiotemporal variations of ionospheric parameters over the regions of Eurasia by analyzing data from chains of high- and mid-latitude ionosondes during the extreme magnetic storm in May 2024. The analysis of ionospheric parameters allowed us to note strong latitudinal and longitudinal differences in variations of the analyzed parameters under quiet conditions before the onset of the magnetic storm and during its development. Almost immediately after the onset of the storm at 17:00 UT on May 10, 2024, according to data from all ionosondes, a sharp drop in the electron density at the height of the F2-layer maximum was recorded, regardless of the local time at the measurement point. Ionosondes of the high-latitude chain showed a complete absence of data (radio signal blackout) during the main and early recovery phases of the storm until the evening of May 12, 2024, i.e. more than one and a half days. Additional bursts of geomagnetic activity during the recovery phase of the storm were also accompanied by significant and prolonged decreases in the electron density according to ionosonde measurements at all longitudes of Eurasia. The recovery of ionospheric ionization began on May 14–15 at all longitudes of the mid- and high-latitude regions of Eurasia. A long-term negative disturbance of electron density covering a huge territory of mid-latitude Eurasia was caused by an extraordinary, catastrophic drop in the [O]/[N2] ratio according to satellite measurements of GUVI TIMED during the superstorm for almost three days. The response of the thermospheric composition of neutral gas to the processes developing at high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere on May 10–15, 2024 was global, with penetration of the thermospheric disturbance at almost all longitudes up to the equatorial latitudes (~10° N) and with very low values of the [O]/[N2] ratio ~0.1÷0.4. Significant differences in the spatiotemporal variations of the thermospheric composition of neutral gas were revealed during the most extreme geomagnetic storms of the current 21st century — in May 2024 and October–November 2003 (Halloween storms). The magnetic superstorm in May 2024 was much more geoeffective than the superstorms in October–November 2003, and caused a significantly different ionospheric response at different longitudes and latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.
mid- and high-latitude ionosphere, ionosonde chains, geomagnetic storm, variations of ionospheric parameters
1. Aladjev G.A., Evstafiev O.V., Mingalev V.S., et al. Interpretation of ionospheric F-region structures in the vicinity of ionization trough observed by satellite radio tomography. Ann. Geophys. 2001, vol. 19, pp. 25–36.
2. Araujo-Pradere E.A., Fuller-Rowell T.J., Codrescu M.V., Bilitza D. Characteristics of the ionospheric variability as a function of season, latitude, local time, and geomagnetic activity. Radio Sci. 2005, vol. 40, RS5009. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/2004RS003179.
3. Astafyeva E.I. Dayside ionospheric uplift during strong geomagnetic storms as detected by the CHAMP, SAC-C, TOPEX and Jason-1 satellites. Adv. Space Res. 2009, vol. 43, pp. 1749–1756. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2008.09.036.
4. Berger T.E., Dominique M., Lucas G., et al. The thermosphere is a drag: the 2022 Starlink incident and the threat of geomagnetic storms to low earth orbit space operations. Space Weather. 2023, vol. 21, iss. 3, pp. 1–15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003330.
5. Blanch E., Altadill D., Boška J., et al. M. November 2003 event: effects on the Earth’s ionosphere observed from ground-based ionosonde and GPS data. Ann. Geophys. 2005, vol. 23, iss. 9, pp. 3027–3034.
6. Bojilova R., Mukhtarov P., Pancheva D. Global Ionospheric Response During Extreme Geomagnetic Storm in May 2024. Remote Sens. 2024, iss. 21, 4046. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16214046.
7. Buonsanto M.J. Ionospheric storms — a review. Space Sci. Rev. 1999, vol. 88, pp. 563–601. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005107532631.
8. Burešová D., Laštovička J., de Franceschi G. Manifestation of Strong Geomagnetic Storms in the Ionosphere above Europe. Space Weather. Springer, 2007, pp. 185–202. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5446-7_17.
9. Chernigovskaya M.A., Shpynev B.G., Yasyukevich A.S., et al. Longitudinal variations of geomagnetic and ionospheric parameters in the Northern Hemisphere during magnetic storms according to multi-instrument observations. Adv. Space Res. 2021, vol. 67, iss. 2, pp. 762–776. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2020.10.028.
10. Chernigovskaya M.A., Yasyukevich A.S., Khabituev D.S. Iono-spheric longitudinal variability in the Northern Hemisphere during magnetic storms in March 2012 from ionosonde and GPS/GLONASS data. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2023, vol. 9, iss. 4, pp. 99–110. DOI:https://doi.org/10.12737/stp-94202313.
11. Chernigovskaya M.A., Setov A.G., Ratovsky K.G, et al. Variability of ionospheric ionization over Eurasia according to data from a high-latitude ionosonde chain during extreme magnetic storms in 2015. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2024a, vol. 10, iss. 2, pp. 34–47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.12737/stp-102202404.
12. Chernigovskaya M.A., Ratovsky K.G., Zherebtsov G.A., et al. Ionospheric response over the high and middle latitude regions of Eurasia according to ionosonde data during the severe magnetic storm in March 2015. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2024b, vol. 10, iss. 4, pp. 46–58. DOI:https://doi.org/10.12737/stp-104202406.
13. Chernigovskaya M.A., Ratovsky K G., Setov A.G., et al. Spatio-temporal variability of ionospheric parameters over Eurasia at meddle and high latitudes during the superstorm in May 2024. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. 2026, vol. 66, iss. 1, pp . 45–78. (In Russian).
14. Chernyshov A.A., Klimenko M.V., Nosikov I.A., et al. Effects in the upper atmosphere and ionosphere in the subauroral region during Victory Day 2024 Geomagnetic Storm (May 10–12, 2024). Adv. Space Res. 2025, vol. 76, iss. 12, pp. 7325–7350. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2025.02.015.
15. Christensen A.B., Paxton L.J., Avery S., et al. Initial observations with the Global Ultraviolet Imager (GUVI) on the NASA TIMED satellite mission. J. Geophys. Res. 2003, vol. 108, iss. A12, 1451. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA009918.
16. Danilchuk E., Yasyukevich Y., Vesnin A., et al. Impact of the May 2024 Extreme Geomagnetic Storm on the Ionosphere and GNSS Positioning. Remote Sens. 2025, vol. 17, 1492. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17091492.
17. Danilov A.D. Long-term trends of foF2 independent on geomagnetic activity. Ann. Geophys. 2003, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1167–1176. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-21-1167-2003.
18. Danilov A.D. Response of region F to geomagnetic disturbances (review). Geliogeofizicheskie issledovaniya [Heliogeophysical Research]. 2013, iss. 5, pp. 1–33. (In Russian).
19. Deminov M.G., Shubin V.N. Empirical model of the location of the main ionospheric trough. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. 2018, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 348–355. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793218030064.
20. Enell C.-F., Kozlovsky A., Turunen T., et al. Comparison between manual scaling and Autoscala automatic scaling applied to Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory ionograms. Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data System. 2016, vol. 5, pp. 53–64. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-5-53-2016.
21. Gopalswamy N., Yashiro S., Michalek G., et al. Solar source of the largest geomagnetic storm of cycle 23. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2005, vol. 32, iss. 12, L12S09. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021639.
22. Grandin M., Bruus E., Ledvina V.E., et al. The geomagnetic superstorm of 10 May 2024: Citizen science observations. EGUsphere [preprint]. 2024. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2174.
23. Habarulema J.B., Katamzi Z.T., Yizengaw E., et al. Sim-ultaneous storm time equatorward and poleward large-scale TIDs on a global scale. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2016, vol. 43, pp. 6678–6686. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069740.
24. Hayakawa H., Ebihara Y., Mishev A., et al. The solar and geomagnetic storms in May 2024: A flash data report. Astrophys. J. 2025. vol. 979, 49. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad9335.
25. Kalishin A.S., Blagoveshchenskaya N.F., Troshichev O.A., Frank-Kamenetskii A.V. FGBU «AARI». Geophysical research in high latitudes. Vestnik RFFI. Antarktida i Arktika: Polyarnye issledovaniya. 2020, no. 3-4 (107-108), pp. 60–74. DOI:https://doi.org/10.22204/2410-4639-2020-106-107-3-4-60-78. (In Russian).
26. Kane R.P. Ionospheric foF2 anomalies during some intense geomagnetic storms. Ann. Geophys. 2005, vol. 23, pp. 2487–2499. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-23-2487-2005.
27. Karpachev A.T. The dependence of the main ionospheric trough shape on longitude, altitude, season, local time, and solar and magnetic activity. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. 2003, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 239–251.
28. Karpachev A. Sub-auroral, mid-latitude, and low-latitude troughs during severe geomagnetic storms. Remote Sens. 2021, vol. 13, no. 3, 534. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13030534.2021.
29. Klimenko M.V., Klimenko V.V., Ratovsky K.G., et al. Numerical modeling of ionospheric effects in the middle- and low-latitude F region during geomagnetic storm sequence of 9–14 September 2005. Radio Sci. 2011, vol. 46, RS0D03. DOI: 10.1029/ 2010RS004590.
30. Klimenko M.V., Klimenko V.V., Despirak I.V., et al. Disturbances of the thermosphere-ionosphere-plasmasphere system and auroral electrojet at 30° E longitude during the St. Patrick’s Day geomagnetic storm on 17–23 March 2015. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 2018, vol. 180, pp. 78–92. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2017.12.017.
31. Krasheninnikov I., Pezzopane M., Scotto C. Application of Autoscala to ionograms recorded by the AIS-Parus ionosonde. Computers and Geosciences. 2010, vol. 36, pp. 628–635. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2009.09.013.
32. Kwak Y.S., Kim J.H., Kim S., et al. Observational overview of the may 2024 G5-level geomagnetic storm: From solar eruptions to terrestrial consequences. J. Astron. Space Sci. 2024, vol. 41, iss. 3, pp. 171–194. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5140/JASS.2024.41.3.171.
33. Laštovička J. Monitoring and forecasting of ionospheric space weather effects of geomagnetic storms. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 2002, vol. 64, pp. 697–705. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(02)00031-7.
34. Liou K., Newell P.T., Anderson B.J., et al. Neutral composition effects on ionospheric storms at middle and low latitudes. J. Geophys. Res. 2005, vol. 110, A05309. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010840.
35. Loewe C.A., Prölss G.W. Classification and mean behavior of magnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 1997, vol. 102, no. A7, pp. 14,209–14,213.
36. MacDougall J.W., Grant I.F., Shen X. The Canadian Advanced Digital Ionosonde: Design and results. Ionosonde Networks and Stations. WDC a for Solar-Terrestrial Physics Report UAG-104. Boulder, 1995, pp. 21–27.
37. Mamrukov A.P., Khalipov V.L., Filippov L.D., et al. Geophysical information on oblique radio reflections at high latitudes and their classification. Issledovaniya po geomagnetizmu, aehronomii i fizike Solntsa [Research On Geomagnetism, Aeronomy and Solar Physics]. Novosibirsk, SB RAS Publ., 2000, vol. 111, pp. 14–27. (In Russian).
38. Matsushita S. A study of the morphology of ionospheric storms. J. Geophys. Res. 1959, vol. 64, iss. 3, pp. 305–321. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ064i003p00305.
39. Mayr H.G., Volland H. Magnetic storm effects in the neutral composition. Planet. Space Sci. 1972, vol. 20, pp. 379–393. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(72)90036-0.
40. Mendillo M. Storms in the ionosphere: Patterns and processes for total electron content. Rev. Geophys. 2006, vol. 44, RG4001. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/2005RG000193.
41. Mikhailov A.V. Ionospheric F2-layer storms. Física de la Tier-ra. 2000, vol. 12, pp. 223–262.
42. Namgaladze A.A., Korenkov Yu.N., Klimenko V.V., et al. Global model of the thermosphere–ionosphere–protonosphere system. PAGEOPH. 1988, vol. 127, no. 2/3, pp. 219–254.
43. Newell P.T., Liou K., Zhang Y., et al. OVATION Prime-2013: Extension of auroral precipitation model to higher disturbance levels. Space Weather. 2014, vol. 12, pp. 368–379. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/2014SW001056.
44. Podlesnyi A.V., Brynko I.G., Kurkin V.I., et al. Multifunctional chirp ionosonde for monitoring the ionosphere. Geliogeofizicheskie issledovaniya (Heliogeophysical Research). 2013, vol. 4, pp. 24–31. (In Russian).
45. Prölss G.W. Ionospheric F-region storms. Handbook of atmospheric electrodynamics. Boca Raton, CRC Press, 1995, vol. 2, ch. 8, pp. 195–248.
46. Prölss G.W., Werner S. Vibrationally excited nitrogen and oxygen and the origin of negative ionospheric storms. J. Geophys. Res. 2002, vol. 107, iss. A2, 1016. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA900126.
47. Polyakov V.M., Shchepkin L.A., Kazimirovsky E.S., Kokourov V.D. Ionosfernye protsessy [Ionospheric processes]. Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., 1968, 535 p. (In Russian).
48. Ponomarchuk S.N., Zolotukhina N.A., Kurkin V.I., et al. The effects of magnetic storm on May 10–13, 2024 in the Asian region on Russia from ionospheric sounding with a continuous chirp signal. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2025, vol. 11, iss. 4, pp. 14–28. DOI:https://doi.org/10.12737/stp-114202504.
49. Ratovsky K.G., Klimenko M.V., Klimenko V.V., et al. Aftereffects of geomagnetic storms: statistical analysis and theoretical explanation. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2018, vol. 4, iss. 4, pp. 26–32. DOI:https://doi.org/10.12737/stp-44201804.
50. Ratovsky K.G., Klimenko M.V., Yasyukevich Y.V., et al. Statistical analysis and interpretation of high-, mid- and low-latitude responses in regional electron content to geomagnetic storms. Atmosphere. 2020, vol. 11, iss. 12, p. 1308. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11121308.
51. Reinisch B.W., Haines D.M., Bibl K., et al. Ionospheric sounding support of over-the-horizon radar. Radio Sci. 1997, vol. 32, iss. 4, pp. 1681–1694. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/97RS00841.
52. Rishbeth H. How the thermospheric circulation affects the ionospheric F2-layer. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 1998, vol. 60, pp. 1385–1402. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(98)00062-5.
53. Rodger A.S., Moffett R.J., Quegan S. The role of ion drift in the formation of ionisation troughs in the mid- and high-latitude ionosphere — a review. J. Atmos. Terr. Phys. 1992, vol. 54, pp. 1–30. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9169(92)90082-V.
54. Seaton M.J. A possible explanation of the drop in F-region critical densities accompanying major ionospheric storms. J. Atmos. Terr. Phys. 1956, vol. 8, pp. 122–124. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9169(56)90102-7.
55. Shpynev B.G., Zolotukhina N.A., Polekh N.M., et al. The ionosphere response to severe geomagnetic storm in March 2015 on the base of the data from Eurasian high-middle latitudes ionosonde chain. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 2018, vol. 180, pp. 93–105. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2017.10.014.
56. Spogli L., Alberti T., Bagiacchi P., et al. The effects of the May 2024 Mother’s Day superstorm over the Mediterranean sector: from data to public communication. Ann. Geophys. 2024, vol, 67, no. 2, PA218. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-9117.
57. Sugiura M., Kamei T. Equatorial Dst index 1957–1986. IAGA bull. 40. Saint-Maur-des-Fosses: ISGI Publication Office, 1991. 14 p.
58. SWPC PRF 2541, 13 May 2024 – The NOAA SWPC (Space Weather Prediction Center) PRF (Preliminary Report and Forecast) 2541 issued on 13 May 2024. ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/warehouse (accessed May 30, 2025).
59. Themens D.R., Elvidge S., McCaffrey A., et al. The high latitude ionospheric response to the major May 2024 geomagnetic storm: A synoptic view. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2024, vol. 51, iss. 19, e2024GL111677. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL111677.
60. Troshichev O.A., Sormakov D.A. PC index as a proxy of the solar wind energy that entered into the magnetosphere: 3. Development of magnetic storms. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 2018, vol. 180, pp. 60–77. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2017.10.012.
61. Tsurutani B., Mannucci A., Iijima B., et al. Global dayside ionospheric up-lift and enhancement associated with interplanetary electric fields. J. Geophys. Res. 2004, vol. 109, A08302. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010342.
62. Uma G., Brahmanandam P.S., Kakinami Y., et al. Ionospheric responses to two large geomagnetic storms over Japanese and Indian longitude sectors J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 2012, vol. 74, pp. 94–110. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.001.
63. Vystavnoi V.M., Makarova L.N., Shirochkov A.V., Egorova L.V. Research of the high-latitude ionosphere by vertical sounding using a modern digital ionosonde CADI. Geliogeofizicheskie issledovaniya [Heliogeophysical Research]. 2013, iss. 4, pp. 1–10. (In Russian).
64. Yasyukevich Yu.V., Vasiliev R.V., Rubtsov A.V., et al. Extreme magnetic storm of May 10–19, 2024: Coupling between neutral and charged components of the upper atmosphere and the effect on radio systems. Doklady Earth Sciences. 2025, vol. 520, 33. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1134/S1028334X24604978.
65. URL: https://giro.uml.edu/didbase/scaled.php (accessed October 3, 2025).
66. URL: https://www.sgo.fi/Data/Ionosonde/ionData.php (accessed October 3, 2025).
67. URL: http://guvitimed.jhuapl.edu/guvi-galleryl3on2 (accessed October 3, 2025).
68. URL: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/noaa-scales-explanation (accessed October 3, 2025).
69. URL: https://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wdc/Sec3.html (accessed October 3, 2025).
70. URL: http://www.wdcb.ru/stp/geomag/geomagn_PC_ind.ru.html (accessed October 3, 2025)
71. URL: http://www.wdcb.ru/stp/data/solar.act/flux10.7/daily/ (accessed October 3, 2025).
72. URL: https://guvitimed.jhuapl.edu/guvi/ (accessed October 3, 2025).
73. URL: http://spidr2.ngdc.noaa.gov/spidr/ (accessed May 30, 2025).
74. URL: https://ssusi.jhuapl.edu/gal_edr-aur_cs (accessed May 30, 2025).
75. URL: http://ckp-rf.ru/ckp/3056/ (accessed October 3, 2025).
76. URL: https://www.ukssdc.ac.uk (accessed October 3, 2025).
77. URL: https://rscf.ru/project/25-17-00187/ (accessed October 3, 2025).
