Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5829
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5829
07 Oct 2026
 | 07 Oct 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).

Comparative Analysis of Middle Atmospheric Ozone Response to Four Large Geomagnetic Storms of Solar Cycle 25

Jia Jia, Yvan Orsolini, Monika E. Szeląg, Antti Kero, Pekka T. Verronen, Maxime Grandin, Patrick J. Espy, Sebastian Käki, Neethal Thomas, Max van de Kamp, Sergey Koldobskiy, Jiarong Zhang, and Noora Partamies

Abstract. Solar Cycle 25 (SC25) produced several major geomagnetic storms with distinctly different combinations of energetic electron precipitation (EEP) and solar proton event (SPE) forcing, providing a unique opportunity to investigate short-term ozone responses in the mesosphere-thermosphere system. We analyse four major storms occurring in May 2024, October 2024, November 2025, and January 2026 using Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) observations and specified-dynamics WACCM-D simulations. Significant mesospheric ozone depletion was observed during all four events, with maximum ozone losses ranging from approximately 30 % to 80 %. Model-observation comparisons show that the dominant particle forcing varied substantially among the storms. The May 2024 superstorm was predominantly EEP-driven, whereas the October 2024 event was largely SPE-driven. The November 2025 and January 2026 storms represent mixed SPE-EEP cases, with a stronger proton contribution during January 2026. Negative ozone anomalies were consistently observed in the lower thermosphere during all four events. Although not reproduced by WACCM-D, their repeated occurrence suggests a lower-thermospheric response to major geomagnetic storms. Model simulations further reveal the indirect energetic particle precipitation (EPP) effect in the stratosphere, characterised by descending ozone depletion features dominated by EEP.

The four SC25 storms demonstrate the value of combining satellite observations with chemistry-climate models to separate the contributions of SPEs, EEP, and atmospheric dynamics, while also revealing several areas where current representations of particle forcing and upper-atmospheric coupling can be further improved. Maintaining long-term observations of both EPP and atmospheric composition remains crucial for improving our understanding of atmosphere-space coupling during geomagnetic storms.

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.
Share
Jia Jia, Yvan Orsolini, Monika E. Szeląg, Antti Kero, Pekka T. Verronen, Maxime Grandin, Patrick J. Espy, Sebastian Käki, Neethal Thomas, Max van de Kamp, Sergey Koldobskiy, Jiarong Zhang, and Noora Partamies

Status: open (until 18 Nov 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Jia Jia, Yvan Orsolini, Monika E. Szeląg, Antti Kero, Pekka T. Verronen, Maxime Grandin, Patrick J. Espy, Sebastian Käki, Neethal Thomas, Max van de Kamp, Sergey Koldobskiy, Jiarong Zhang, and Noora Partamies
Jia Jia, Yvan Orsolini, Monika E. Szeląg, Antti Kero, Pekka T. Verronen, Maxime Grandin, Patrick J. Espy, Sebastian Käki, Neethal Thomas, Max van de Kamp, Sergey Koldobskiy, Jiarong Zhang, and Noora Partamies
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 07 Oct 2026
Download
Short summary
Geomagnetic storms connect space weather to Earth's atmosphere. Analysing four major Solar Cycle 25 storms, we show that energetic particles cause mesospheric ozone losses of up to 80 %, with distinct responses to energetic electron precipitation and solar proton events. Combining observations and simulations reveals shortcomings in current representations of upper-atmospheric coupling and points to the need for sustained measurements of energetic particles and atmospheric composition.
Share