Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Scintillations in Southern Europe during the geomagnetic storm of June 2015: analysis of a plasma bubbles spill-over using ground-based data

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The June 2015 geomagnetic storm pushed equatorial plasma bubbles from the tropics to mid-latitudes, and ground-based GNSS receivers in southern Europe recorded the resulting multi-scale scintillations.

desk verdict A solid case-study consolidation of the June 2015 EPB spill-over with genuinely new S4 data, but the EPB attribution is slightly looser than the paper's language suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06608 v1 pith:PW6X5SXI submitted 2024-12-09 physics.geo-ph physics.space-ph

Anna Morozova , Luca Spogli , Teresa Barata , Rayan Imam , Emanuele Pica , Juan Andrés Cahuasquí , Mohammed Mainul Hoque , Norbert Jakowski
show 1 more author
Daniela Estaço
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.geo-phphysics.space-ph
keywords scintillationsS4ROTIGIXequatorialplasmabubblesspill-overmid-latitudinalionosphereionosphericgradients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to show that the severe GNSS disturbances seen across southern Europe and the North Atlantic during the geomagnetic storm of June 22–23, 2015, were caused by a rare northward spill-over of equatorial plasma bubbles, not by high-latitude processes alone. It combines ground-based amplitude scintillation (S4) and ROTI data with spatial TEC-gradient maps and Swarm satellite detections to argue that the same storm-driven structures produced disturbances at multiple spatial scales, from sub-kilometre irregularities to kilometre-scale electron-density depletions. If the interpretation is right, mid-latitude scintillation events can originate in the equatorial ionosphere and travel north-west, which would make monitoring of low-latitude plasma structures relevant for GNSS users in southern Europe. The authors stress that such multi-scale, storm-triggered irregularities are a growing practical concern for navigation and positioning services in the region.

What carries the argument

The carrying element is the multi-scale coincidence among four independent diagnostics: the amplitude scintillation index S4 (sensitive to sub-kilometre irregularities), the rate-of-TEC index ROTI (sensitive to kilometre-scale structures), spatial TEC gradients computed by finite differences on 0.5-degree-by-0.5-degree gridded TEC maps (sensitive to tens-of-kilometre boundaries), and space-based checks using the Swarm plasma bubble index and sTEC drops. The paper's working identity is that steep spatial TEC gradients mark the edges of plasma depletions, so regions where high S4, high ROTI, and steep gradients coincide can be read as equatorial plasma bubble boundaries; the co-location of all these signatures is the evidence that carries the spill-over interpretation.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to repeat the analysis with higher-resolution TEC maps or in-situ ionospheric density measurements and test whether every S4>0.5 enhancement aligns with a plasma-density depletion whose boundary is the steep gradient zone; a high-gradient, high-S4 region without a corresponding density depletion would falsify the claim that these gradients are EPB boundaries.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the night of June 22–23, 2015, all three stations—Lisbon, Tenerife, and Lampedusa—recorded amplitude scintillation S4 above 0.5, with Tenerife showing the earliest and strongest peak and Lampedusa the weakest. ROTI maps and ground-based ROTI show the same disturbance as a band of elevated values moving north-westward between the Canary Islands and the Iberian Peninsula. Spatial TEC-gradient maps reveal elongated north-west–south-east structures whose boundaries coincide with the high S4 and ROTI values, and slant-TEC drops of 30–50 TECu occur at the times of scintillation onset, indicating plasma-depletion boundaries crossing the receiver-satellite lines of sight. Swarm plasma-bubble detections and the GIX, NeGIX, and TEGIX gradient indices place the strongest electron-density and TEC gradients between 20°N and 40°N, over the Strait of Gibraltar and northern Africa. The paper concludes that the storm's mid-latitude perturbations at all these scales were the work of spill-over equatorial plasma bubbles, and that the co-location of S4, ROTI, and spatial TEC gradients can be used to identify such events in this region.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation depends on treating co-located high S4, high ROTI, and steep TEC gradients as the reliable signature of equatorial plasma bubble boundaries, an identification imported from earlier work and not independently validated for this event, and on the 0.5-degree, 5-minute TEC maps being fine enough to resolve the bubbles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • During the night of June 22–23, 2015, S4 exceeded 0.5 at Lisbon, Tenerife, and Lampedusa, with Tenerife showing the strongest and earliest peak and Lampedusa the weakest.
  • ROTI maps and ground-based receivers locate the disturbance in a band between the Canary Islands and the Iberian Peninsula that moves north-westward over the event.
  • High S4 values cluster inside the elongated north-west–south-east structures outlined by steep spatial TEC gradients, while slant TEC drops by 30–50 TECu at scintillation onset, marking plasma-depletion boundaries crossing the receiver-satellite lines of sight.
  • Swarm-based PBI, NeGIX, and TEGIX detections place the strongest gradients between 20°N and 40°N, over the Strait of Gibraltar and northern Africa, in agreement with ground-based GIX maps.
  • The multi-scale agreement supports using spatial TEC-gradient maps as a proxy for EPB-related scintillation in this region and explains why the June 2015 storm's low-mid-latitude response was stronger than in the March 2015 storm.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the S4–ROTI–gradient co-location is a reliable EPB-spill-over proxy, then future mid-latitude scintillation climatologies for southern Europe could be built from dense ROTI and TEC-gradient maps alone, without requiring dense S4 networks.
  • The paper's comparison with the March 2015 storm suggests a diagnostic rule: when storm-time gradients and ROTI are stronger at low-middle latitudes than at middle latitudes, equatorial-origin plasma structures should be suspected rather than high-latitude travelling disturbances.
  • The authors' own note that the June 23 Swarm-detected bubble falls between gradient maxima implies that 0.5-degree maps may miss smaller spill-over bubbles; combining ground-based gradients with Swarm TEGIX could recover those smaller structures.
  • A testable extension is to search for the same north-west-moving multi-scale signature in other storms whose prompt penetration electric fields act near local evening at the geomagnetic equator, which would confirm the causal picture the paper outlines.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the ionospheric response to the June 22-23, 2015 geomagnetic storm over Southern Europe and the Eastern North Atlantic, using 1-minute S4 from three receivers, ROTI from ground receivers and DRAWING-TEC maps, spatial TEC gradients, GIX/NeGIX/TEGIX indices, and the Swarm ionospheric plasma bubble index. It reports scintillations (S4>0.5) at Lisbon, Tenerife, and Lampedusa, with associated ROTI enhancements and steep TEC gradients, and interprets these as the signature of equatorial plasma bubbles (EPBs) spilling over from low latitudes and drifting north-westward. The paper concludes that storm-time mid-latitude irregularity activity in this sector originated from low-latitude plasma structures rather than from local or high-latitude processes alone.

Significance. If the EPB spill-over interpretation is correct, this is a valuable case study of a rare and operationally important phenomenon, with direct implications for GNSS integrity in the EGNOS region. The paper's strengths include the use of multiple independent data streams, the open availability of the S4 data and supplementary animations, and the transparent reporting of mismatches between Swarm PBI and the ground-based proxies. However, the central attribution to EPBs rests on an unvalidated mapping of TEC gradients to EPB boundaries, imported from a low-latitude climatology, and on only two post-hoc selected Swarm detections, one of which is misaligned with the ground-based signatures. These limitations currently leave the spill-over interpretation plausible but not firmly established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3] The identification of the observed irregularity structures as EPB boundaries relies on the assumption that high spatial TEC gradients in the 0.5°×0.5°, 5-minute DRAWING-TEC maps mark EPB edges, an assumption imported from the low-latitude Brazil climatology of [33]. This mapping is not independently validated for this mid-latitude storm event. The paper's own data show inconsistent alignments: on June 23 at 01:00 UTC the Swarm PBI lies between the high-gradient/high-ROTI areas, and on June 22 at 23:00 UTC the PBI coincides with gradient maxima but not with ROTI maxima. The authors attribute the June 23 mismatch to map resolution, but they provide no test of this explanation. Please add an independent check (e.g., raw Swarm Ne depletion profiles, airglow, or ionosonde data) or explicitly weaken the EPB-boundary claim.
  2. [Sections 4.3 and 5] Statements such as "Spatiotemporal patterns of the variations of the scintillation indices and TEC gradients are very well correlated" and "the results agree with the Swarm PBI detections" are made without any statistical quantification. Since the co-location of S4, ROTI, and TEC gradients is the main evidence for the EPB interpretation, the paper should provide quantitative measures (correlation coefficients, coincidence rates, or significance tests) for these comparisons, including for the two Swarm PBI events.
  3. [Section 2.3] The Swarm PBI confirmation is based on only two events selected post-hoc from six detections, with four excluded as too far east or west. One of the two used events (June 23 01:00 UTC) does not align with the ground-based proxies. This selection and the small sample size substantially weaken the claimed confirmation. Please report all six detections with their positions relative to the ground-based disturbance, or discuss explicitly how the selection affects the strength of the confirmation.
  4. [Sections 3.2 and 4.3] The resolution of the DRAWING-TEC maps (0.5°×0.5°, 5-minute, further averaged to 15-minute) is coarse compared with the Fresnel-scale irregularities that drive S4 (a few hundred meters) and with the few-kilometer scales associated with ROTI. The authors themselves note in Section 4.3 that the structures may be smaller than the map resolution. It is unclear how gradients computed at this resolution can resolve EPB boundaries, and whether the observed gradient features are robust against the map interpolation. Please provide a resolution analysis or a sensitivity test, and state explicitly what scales the gradient maps can resolve.
  5. [Sections 4 and 5] The alternative explanation that the observed S4/ROTI/gradient complex reflects storm-time MSTIDs, storm-enhanced density boundaries, or locally generated irregularities is not tested. Given the unvalidated gradient-to-EPB mapping, the paper should at least discuss observable discriminators (e.g., propagation direction, altitude extent, spectral characteristics) and explain why the EPB interpretation is favored over these alternatives.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains several typographical errors, including "sideral" for "sidereal" (Section 3.1.2 and the caption of Figure 2) and "IPBs" for "EPBs" in Section 4.4.
  2. [Figures] The figure numbering is inconsistent: Figure 22 appears before Figure 18 in the text, and the text references "Fig. 18" after discussing Figure 22; please renumber the figures in order of first appearance.
  3. [References] In the reference list, there is a stray text "Rea2023" before reference [10], and reference [24] duplicates reference [17]; please clean up the bibliography and check all DOIs.
  4. [Figure 22] The caption of Figure 22 contains a typo ("95=percentile"), and the units of the GIX component are written inconsistently across the text and figures; please standardize.
  5. [Data Availability] The data availability statement lists the DRAWING-TEC access URL with "last visited on *** 202*"; please fill in the actual access dates.
  6. [Title] The title states "using ground-based data", but the paper also uses Swarm space-borne data; consider revising the title to reflect the multi-platform nature of the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EPB spill-over inference is assembled from independent multi-instrument measurements, and the cited gradient-scintillation proxy is external evidence rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameter that is renamed as a prediction and no equation that defines the target result in terms of its own inputs. The central chain—S4>0.5 at Lisbon, Tenerife, and Lampedusa, ROTI enhancements, sTEC drops, spatial TEC gradients, GIX/NeGIX/TEGIX, and Swarm PBI detections—is built from independent measurements and previously published indices. The only imported interpretive step is the claim that high spatial TEC gradients mark EPB boundaries, attributed to reference [33]; that is an external climatological result based on Brazilian observations, not a definition or a fit to the June 2015 data, so it does not reduce to the paper's own inputs. The authors explicitly note the imperfect alignment between the Swarm PBI and the gradient/ROTI maxima in Section 4.3 and attribute it to map resolution; this is an evidentiary limitation of the proxy, not circularity. Self-citations such as [8], [28], and [33] provide data products, context, and prior event reports, but the conclusion does not depend on accepting an unverified self-cited theorem. The skeptical concern that the EPB interpretation is not independently validated for this event is a correctness or robustness issue, not a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted physical parameters are used; the central claim rests on measurement interpretation and prior data products. The listed free parameters are data treatment choices, not fitted model constants.

free parameters (3)
  • S4 multipath threshold = 0.6
    Preliminary cleaning threshold chosen by visual inspection of raw S4 versus IPP plots (Section 3.1.1); final analysis uses sidereal mask, so the central claim does not depend on this value.
  • 7-day sidereal S4 mask
    Multipath mask built from average sidereal S4 per PRN with maximum sample excluded (Section 3.1.2); mask width and outlier rule are hand-chosen.
  • Scintillation threshold S4 > 0.5 = 0.5
    Standard threshold for identifying scintillation events; used to define event periods in Section 4.1.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption S4 and ROTI probe different irregularity scale sizes: S4 is sensitive to sub-Fresnel scale (hundreds of meters), ROTI to kilometer-scale structures.
    Used in Section 4.2 to interpret combined S4 and ROTI patterns as multi-scale irregularities.
  • domain assumption Spatial TEC gradients computed from 0.5 degree TEC maps depict the boundaries of plasma bubbles and correspond to scintillation regions.
    Imported from [33]; relied on in Section 4.3 to identify EPB boundaries and to associate sTEC drops with bubbles.
  • domain assumption Swarm ionospheric bubble index reliably flags plasma bubbles along satellite tracks.
    Used in Sections 2.3 and 4.3 to confirm EPB presence; four of six flagged events are excluded as too far east or west.
  • domain assumption Prompt penetration electric fields near sunset at the geomagnetic equator seeded the plasma bubbles and their spill-over.
    Background causal chain adopted from earlier literature in Section 1; not independently established by this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scintillations in Southern Europe during the geomagnetic storm of June 2015: analysis of a plasma bubbles spill-over using ground-based data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PW6X5SXI

@misc{pith2026241206608,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scintillations in Southern Europe during the geomagnetic storm of June 2015: analysis of a plasma bubbles spill-over using ground-based data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PW6X5SXI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06608}
}
read the original abstract

The sensitivity of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) receivers to ionospheric disturbances and their constant growth are nowadays resulting in an increased concern of GNSS-users about the impacts of ionospheric disturbances at mid-latitudes. The geomagnetic storm of June 2015 is an example of a rare phenomenon of a spill-over of equatorial plasma bubbles well North from their habitual. We study the occurrence of small- and medium-scale irregularities in the North Atlantic Eastern-Mediterranean mid- and low-latitudinal zone by analysing the behaviour of the amplitude scintillation index S4 and of the rate of total electron content index (ROTI) during such a storm. In addition, large scale perturbations of the ionospheric electron density were studied using ground and space-born instruments, thus characterizing a complex perturbation behaviour over the region mentioned above. The multi-source data allows us to characterize the impact of irregularities of different scales to better understand the ionospheric dynamics and stress the importance of a proper monitoring of the ionosphere in the studied region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06608 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Locations of GNSS receivers used to calculate S4 (red open diamonds) and ROTI (black diamonds) scintillation indices. Lisbon. The S4 data for Lisbon are obtained by a geodetic Septentrio GNSS receiver with SCINDA software installed in the area of the Lisbon airport (38.70° N, 9.14° W) be￾tween 2014 and 2019. The acquisition and processing of the data are described in detail in [21-22]. The data were validated during… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. S4 data for Lisbon for June 2015. (a) All data. (b) Removing multipath contamination with an S4 threshold of 0.6. (c) Removing multipath contamination using sidereal S4 analysis. 3.2 TEC gradients maps Spatial ionospheric gradients reflect spatial changes of the electron density and can be used to line out local areas with higher/lower electron density compared to the sur￾rounding ionosphere. An analysis of the spat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scheme of the calculation of the spatial TEC gradients using TEC maps (adopted from [31]). 4. Scintillation event of June 22-23, 2015 4.1 S4 from ground-based receivers The analysis of the June 22-23, 2015, scintillation event presented in this work is based on the data from three ground-based GNSS receivers located in the Mediterranean-Atlan￾tic region (marked as open red diamonds in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: S4 (coloured dots) at IPP coordinates collected during 15 min on June 22 between 20:45 and 23:30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    and Bougard, B., 2015

    Cesaroni, C., Spogli, L., Alfonsi, L., De Franceschi, G., Ciraolo, L., Monico, J.F.G., Scotto, C., Romano, V., Aquino, M. and Bougard, B., 2015. L-band scintillations and calibrated total electron content gradients over Brazil during the last solar maximum. Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 5, p.A36, https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2015038 Disclaim...

    work page arXiv 2015

  2. [1]

    and Zakharenkova, I., 2016

    Cherniak, I. and Zakharenkova, I., 2016. First observations of super plasma bubbles in Europe . Geophysical Research Letters , 43(21), pp.11-137, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071421

    work page doi:10.1002/2016gl071421 2016

  3. [2]

    and Marcocci , C., 2024

    Pica, E., Spogli, L., Cesaroni, C., Alfonsi, L., Haralambous, H., Vallianatos, F., De Franceschi, G., Romano, V. and Marcocci , C., 2024. Assessing the ionospheric scintillations occurrence on L -band in the southern Mediterranean sector. Advances in Space Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2024.10.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2024.10.032 2024

  4. [3]

    and Wan, W., 2015

    Wei, Y., Zhao, B., Li, G. and Wan, W., 2015. Electric field penetration into Earth’s ionosphere: a brief review for 2000–2013. Sci- ence Bulletin, 60(8), pp.748-761, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-015-0749-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11434-015-0749-4 2015

  5. [4]

    and Wan, W., 2021

    Li, G., Ning, B., Otsuka, Y., Abdu, M.A., Abadi, P., Liu, Z., Spogli, L. and Wan, W., 2021. Challenges to equatorial plasma bubble and ionospheric scintillation short-term forecasting and future aspects in east and southeast Asia. Surveys in Geophysics, 42, pp.201-238, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-020-09613-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10712-020-09613-5 2021

  6. [5]

    , Spadoni, S., Tozzi, R

    Spogli, L., Alberti, T., Bagiacchi, P., Cafarella, L., Cesaroni, C., Cianchini, G., Coco, I., Di Mauro, D., Ghidoni, R., Giannattasio, F., Ippolito, A., Marcocci, C., Pezzopane, M., Pica, E., Pignalberi, A., Perrone, L., Romano, V., Sabbagh, D., Scotto, C. , Spadoni, S., Tozzi, R. and Viola, M., 2024. The effects of the May 2024 Mother’s Day superstorm ov...

    work page doi:10.4401/ag-9122 2024

  7. [6]

    and Hickey, D.A., 2021

    Rodrigues, F.S., Socola, J.G., Moraes, A.O., Martinis, C. and Hickey, D.A., 2021. On the properties of and ionospheric condi- tions associated with a mid‐latitude scintillation event observed over southern United States. Space Weather , 19(6), p. e 2021SW002744, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021sw002744

    work page doi:10.1029/2021sw002744 2021

  8. [7]

    and Barata, T., 2020

    Morozova, A.L., Barlyaeva, T.V. and Barata, T., 2020. Variations of TEC over Iberian Peninsula in 2015 due to geomagnetic storms and solar flares. Space Weather, 18(11), p.e2020SW002516, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002516

    work page doi:10.1029/2020sw002516 2020

Show all 30 references
  1. [8]

    and Jakowski, N., 2024

    Nykiel, G., Cahuasquí, J.A., Hoque, M.M. and Jakowski, N., 2024. Relationship between GIX, SIDX, and ROTI ionospheric indices and GNSS precise positioning results under geomagnetic storms. GPS Solutions , 28(2), p.69 , https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-023-01611-5

    2024 doi

  2. [9]

    and Morozova, A., 2023

    Barata, T., Pereira, J., Hernández-Pajares, M., Barlyaeva, T. and Morozova, A., 2023. Ionosphere over Eastern North Atlantic Midlatitudinal Zone during Geomagnetic Storms. Atmosphere, 14(6), p.949, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14060949 Rea2023 Rino, C., Yokoyama, T. and Carran...

    2023 doi

  3. [10]

    and Alken, P., 2016

    Astafyeva, E., Zakharenkova, I. and Alken, P., 2016. Prompt penetration electric fields and the extreme topside ionospheric response to the June 22 –23, 2015 geomagnetic storm as seen by the Swarm constellation. Earth, Planets and Space, 68, pp.1 -12, https://doi.org/10.1186/s...

    2016 doi

  4. [11]

    and Coffey, V., 2019

    Ngwira, C.M., Habarulema, J.B., Astafyeva, E., Yizengaw, E., Jonah, O.F., Crowley, G., Gisler, A. and Coffey, V., 2019. Dy- namic response of ionospheric plasma density to the geomagnetic storm of 22‐23 June 2015. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124(8), pp.7123...

    2019 doi

  5. [12]

    and Sokolovsky, S., 2019

    Cherniak, I., Zakharenkova, I. and Sokolovsky, S., 2019. Multi‐instrumental observation of storm‐induced ionospheric plasma bubbles at equatorial and middle latitudes . Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics , 124(3), pp.1491 -1508, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA026309

    2019 doi

  6. [13]

    and Ho, C.M., 1997

    Pi, X., Mannucci, A.J., Lindqwister, U.J. and Ho, C.M., 1997. Monitoring of global ionospheric irregularities using the world- wide GPS network. Geophysical Research Letters, 24(18), pp.2283-2286, https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL02273

    1997 doi

  7. [15]

    and Long, R.A., 1978

    Fremouw, E.J., Leadabrand, R.L., Livingston, R.C., Cousins, M.D., Rino, C.L., Fair, B.C. and Long, R.A., 1978. Early results from the DNA Wideband satellite experiment —Complex-signal scintillation. Radio Science , 13(1), pp.167 -187, https://doi.org/10.1029/RS013i001p00167

    1978 doi

  8. [16]

    and Monico, J.F., 2011, September

    Bougard, B., Sleewaegen, J.M., Spogli, L., Veettil, S.V. and Monico, J.F., 2011, September. CIGALA: Challenging the solar maximum in Brazil with PolaRxS. In Proceedings of the 24th international technical meeting of the satellite division of the institute of navigation (ion GN...

    2011

  9. [18]

    and Radicella, S.M., 2018

    Kashcheyev, A., Migoya‐Orué, Y., Amory‐Mazaudier, C., Fleury, R., Nava, B., Alazo‐Cuartas, K. and Radicella, S.M., 2018. Multivariable comprehensive analysis of two great geomagnetic storms of 2015. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics , 123(6), pp.5000-5018, https:/...

    2018 doi

  10. [19]

    and Nikoukar, R., 2023

    Mrak, S., Coster, A.J., Groves, K. and Nikoukar, R., 2023. Ground -based infrastructure for monitoring and characterizing intermediate-scale ionospheric irregularities at mid -latitudes. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences , 10, p.1091340 , https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas....

    2023

  11. [20]

    and Fremouw, E.J., 2003

    Wernik, A.W., Secan, J.A. and Fremouw, E.J., 2003. Ionospheric irregularities and scintillation. Advances in Space Re- search, 31(4), pp.971-981, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1227(02)00795-0. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 34 of 34

    2003 doi

  12. [21]

    and Morozova, A., 2020

    Barlyaeva, T., Barata, T. and Morozova, A., 2020. Datasets of ionospheric parameters provided by SCINDA GNSS receiver from Lisbon airport area. Data in Brief, 31, p.105966, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.105966

    2020

  13. [22]

    and Barata, T., 2023

    Morozova, A., Barlyaeva, T. and Barata, T., 2023. Updating datasets of ionospheric parameters provided by SCINDA GNSS receiver from Lisbon airport area with full data sets for 2014 -2019. Data in Brief , 47, p.109026 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109026

    2023

  14. [23]

    Ionosphere scintillations

    Morozova, A. (2023) “Ionosphere scintillations”. In: “Space weather influence on the ionosphere and its potential threats to GNSS services: focus on the Portuguese territories”, A. Morozova, T. Barlyaeva (Eds.), Materials of the on-line workshop “Space weather influence on the...

    2023 doi

  15. [24]

    and Hua, Q., 1993, September

    Van Dierendonck, A.J., Klobuchar, J. and Hua, Q., 1993, September. Ionospheric scintillation monitoring using commercial single frequency C/A code receivers. In proceedings of ION GPS (Vol. 93, pp. 1333-1342)

    1993

  16. [25]

    Cesaroni, C., De Franceschi, G., Marcocci, C., Pica, E., Romano, V., & Spogli, L. (2020). Electronic Space Weather Upper Atmosphere Database (eSWua) - GNSS Scintillation Data, Version 1.0. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. https://doi.org/10.13127/ESWUA/GNSS (Upp...

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    and Liu, C.H., 1982

    Yeh, K.C. and Liu, C.H., 1982. Radio wave scintillations in the ionosphere. Proceedings of the IEEE , 70(4), pp.324 -360, https://doi.org/10.1109/PROC.1982.12313

    1982

  18. [27]

    and Hoque, M.M., 2019

    Jakowski, N. and Hoque, M.M., 2019. Estimation of spatial gradients and temporal variations of the total electron content using ground‐based GNSS measurements. Space Weather, 22(2), pp.339-356, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018SW002119

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    and Berdermann, J., 2024

    Cahuasquí, J.A., Hoque, M.M., Jakowski, N., Vasylyev, D., Buchert, S., Nykiel, G., Kriegel, M., David, P., Tagargouste, Y. and Berdermann, J., 2024. NeGIX and TEGIX: two new indices to characterize the topside ionosphere with Swarm (No. EGU24- 12608). Copernicus Meetings https...

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    and Jayachandran, P.T., 2022

    McCaffrey, A.M. and Jayachandran, P.T., 2022. Spectral characteristics of auroral region scintillation using 100 Hz sampling. GPS Solutions, 21, pp.1883-1894., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-022-0664-z. [30 Imam, R., Alfonsi, L., Spogli, L., Cesaroni, C., Mehr, I.E., Minetto, ...

    2022 doi

  21. [31]

    and Orús‐Pérez, R., 2022

    Liu, Q., Hernández‐Pajares, M., Yang, H., Monte‐Moreno, E., García‐Rigo, A., Lyu, H., Olivares‐Pulido, G. and Orús‐Pérez, R., 2022. A New Way of Estimating the Spatial and Temporal Components of the Vertical Total Electron Content Gradient Based on UPC‐IonSAT Global Ionosphere...

    2022 doi

  22. [32]

    A review on the numerical simulation of equatorial plasma bubbles toward scintillation evaluation and forecasting

    Yokoyama, T., 2022. A review on the numerical simulation of equatorial plasma bubbles toward scintillation evaluation and forecasting. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 4, pp.1-13, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-022-0153-6

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.