Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2997
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2997
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
11 Jun 2026
| 11 Jun 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Annales Geophysicae (ANGEO).
Ionospheric currents and auroral signatures during successive earthward bursty bulk flows and dipolarization: a 7 December 2023 case study
Abstract. The Sun continuously sends plasma and magnetic fields toward Earth, loading the nightside magnetosphere (the magnetotail) with energy and momentum in its stretched magnetic field lines. Under certain conditions this stored energy is suddenly released, producing fast streams of plasma that travel from the magnetotail toward Earth and interact with the ionized upper atmosphere (the ionosphere) through electric currents. On 7 December 2023, six such fast plasma flows were detected by a spacecraft in the magnetotail. By tracing the magnetic field lines, we estimated where each flow connected to the ionosphere. Using ground‑based magnetometers, auroral images, and satellite measurements, we examined how the ionosphere responded to each flow. We show that the repeated impacts of these flows gradually altered the ionospheric current system and auroral activity, ultimately leading to the onset of a substorm.
How to cite. Lanabere, V., Buchert, S., Blagau, A., George, H., Nanjo, S., Juusola, L., Dimmock, A. P., Wharton, S., Vanhamäki, H., Marghitu, O., Richard, L., Cai, L., Wallner, A. V. L., Kotova, D., Jin, Y., Hoppe, T., Carter, J. A., and Aikio, A.: Ionospheric currents and auroral signatures during successive earthward bursty bulk flows and dipolarization: a 7 December 2023 case study, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2997, 2026.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Download & links
Download & links
- Preprint
(42097 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 Jul 2026)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2997', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jun 2026 reply
Video supplement
Ionospheric currents and auroral signatures during successive earthward bursty bulk flows and dipolarization: a 7 December 2023 case study Lanabere, Vanina https://doi.org/10.5446/73085
Viewed
Total article views: 74 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 11 Jun 2026)
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 57 | 12 | 5 | 74 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 57
- PDF: 12
- XML: 5
- Total: 74
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 74 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 74 with geography defined
and 0 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Latest update: 02 Jul 2026
Vanina Lanabere
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden
Stephan Buchert
Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden
Adrian Blagau
Institute of Space Science, Bucharest, Romania
Harriet George
Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden
Sota Nanjo
Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Kiruna, Sweden
Liisa Juusola
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Andrew P. Dimmock
Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden
Samuel Wharton
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Heikki Vanhamäki
Space Physics and Astronomy Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Octav Marghitu
Institute of Space Science, Bucharest, Romania
Louis Richard
Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden
Space Physics and Astronomy Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Alice V. L. Wallner
Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Daria Kotova
Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Theresa Hoppe
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Jennifer A. Carter
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Anita Aikio
Space Physics and Astronomy Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Short summary
We studied a series of fast plasma streams that connected Earth’s nightside magnetic environment with the high‑latitude ionized upper atmosphere on 7 December 2023. Using satellite, auroral images and ground observations, we showed how each stream disturbed the upper atmosphere. Their repeated impact strengthened these disturbances until a substorm began, revealing how small events can build up to a larger magnetic disruption.
We studied a series of fast plasma streams that connected Earth’s nightside magnetic environment...
General comments:
The manuscript provides detailed case studies of 4 bursty bulk flow events occurring on December 7, 2023 in order to determine the magnetotail-ionosphere coupling during these events and the space weather impacts of these events. The authors examine horizontal ionospheric currents, all-sky camera data, plasma measurements from THEMIS and Swarm, and ground magnetometer data from these intervals. They conclude that BBFs correspond to regions of counterclockwise vorticity and enhanced auroral activity in the ionosphere, highly localized alternating FAC structures, magnetotail dipolarizations, and ground magnetic disturbances that have the potential to drive GIC events. This manuscript is a valuable contribution to the field and this reviewer recommends publication following minor revisions to improve the clarity of the manuscript.
Figure corrections:
Figure 1: Since this figure is referred to later in the manuscript to discuss By during BBF intervals in line 242, the reviewer recommends labeling the dots in panel d with the number of the relevant BBF interval.
Figure 2: The authors may consider separating panel d into one panel for AU/AL and one panel for SYM-H, since the two sets of parameters are determined differently and measure different kinds of activity.
Figure 2 caption: “no time-shifted” → “no time-shift”
Figure 4: The inclusion of the BBF footpoints estimated from the Tsyganenko models make it difficult to identify the ground stations, centroid etc. and are already described in the text and included in later figures. The reviewer recommends removing these footpoints from this figure or including them as a separate figure in an appendix.
Figures 5-8, panels a: The BBF footpoint centroid is difficult to see in panels a in Figures 5-8 and could be made bigger. The Tsyganenko footpoints are not referred to in the text and not included in panels b in Figure 5. The reviewer recommends removing these footpoints from all Figures 5-8 or including the footpoints in Figure 5 panels b.
Figure 11, panels a-d: It is extremely hard to see the BBF centroid and footpoints in these figures and the reviewer recommends making these bigger.
Figure 12: It could be helpful to include reference lines for the BBF events discussed in the text.
Technical corrections:
Line 189: It looks like the IMF clock angle changes closer to 18:00 UT.
Line 226: Since the THEMIS-D BBF detection is not included in Figure 3 but is discussed in the text, it would be good to include in the figure or mention the time span of the BBF in the text.
Line 232: “throughout the interval” → “throughout the intervals”
Line 379: Do the authors mean to refer to panel a3?
Line 406: Do the authors mean to refer to panels c and d where THEMIS D Bz is labeled?
Line 445: The reviewer believes the authors should be referring to 20:03:28 instead of 20:23:28.
Table 2 caption: “SuperMag” → “SuperMAG”
Line 462: “SuperMag” → “SuperMAG”
Line 546: The reviewer believes the authors mean that the largest perturbation occurs during Interval 6, while Interval 5 produced a comparable peak.