JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, A09S40, doi:10.

1029/2004JA010985, 2005

Global thermospheric neutral density and

wind response to the severe 2003 geomagnetic
storms from CHAMP accelerometer data
E. K. Sutton, J. M. Forbes, and R. S. Nerem
Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Received 18 December 2004; revised 3 May 2005; accepted 17 June 2005; published 23 September 2005.
[1] Measurements of atmospheric density near 410 km from the STAR accelerometer
on the CHAMP satellite are used to illustrate the spatial-temporal dependence of the
thermospheric response to the severe solar storms occurring during 29 October to
1 November 2003. This interval includes periods of elevated magnetic activity with KP
values of 5–9, as well as undisturbed intervals that serve to define quiet time baseline
densities. Measurements are available from
87
to +87
latitude during both day and
night at local times near 1300 and 0100 hours, respectively. During times of
maximum geomagnetic activity for this study, density measurements exhibit
enhancements of 200–300%. Northern Hemisphere daytime responses are much larger
than in the Southern Hemisphere; the origins of this effect are unknown. Nighttime
density disturbances more readily propagate to equatorial latitudes, possibly facilitated
by the predominant equatorward flow in both hemispheres due to the diurnal tides
driven by in situ EUV heating. The CHAMP density measurements are compared with
density predictions from the NRL-MSISe00 empirical density model and demonstrate
some model shortcomings. Measurements of cross-track accelerations provide the
opportunity to estimate zonal winds from the equator to about ±60
latitude,
transitioning to a measure of purely meridional winds at the turning point of the orbit
near ±87
latitude. A periodic variation in cross-track winds with an apparent period of
24 hours appears at high latitudes and exhibits similar amplitudes and temporal-
latitudinal structures to the empirical HWM-93 wind model when projected into the
cross-track direction. This periodicity is due to the displacement of geomagnetic and
geographic coordinates. At low latitudes, CHAMP and HWM-93 both yield westward
winds of order 100 ms
1 during midday under quiet magnetic conditions; however,
during severely disturbed periods the HWM-93 winds generally show a greater
westward intensification (to 250 ms
1) than the CHAMP measurements. At night,
CHAMP winds are near zero under quiet conditions whereas HWM-93 indicates
eastward winds of order 50–100 ms
1. Under disturbed conditions the CHAMP winds
shift to westward values of order 200 to 250 ms
1, while HMW-93 values do not
exceed about 50 ms
1 in the westward direction. The physical origins of the observed
effects are difficult to isolate, and unequivocal interpretation will require sophisticated
numerical modeling taking into account self-consistent interactions between the
neutral winds, drifts, and ionization densities.
Citation: Sutton, E. K., J. M. Forbes, and R. S. Nerem (2005), Global thermospheric neutral density and wind response to the severe
2003 geomagnetic storms from CHAMP accelerometer data, J. Geophys. Res., 110, A09S40, doi:10.1029/2004JA010985.

1. Introduction on 29 and 30 October. At 0611 UT on 29 October, the CME

[2] During the period spanning from late October to early
November of 2003, an active region on the Sun (Active
Region 486) produced flares and coronal mass ejections
(CMEs) of intensities rarely seen before. Two major geo-
magnetic storms were caused by CMEs arriving at the Earth
Copyright 2005 by the American Geophysical Union.
0148-0227/05/2004JA010985
associated with an X17 flare impacted the Earth’s magnetic
field. The geomagnetic aP index reached 400 for a short
period of time after the impact. A northward interplanetary
magnetic field (IMF) Bz component was responsible for a
slight lull in geomagnetic activity from 0900 to 1800 UT on
29 October. Near the end of this period, a strong southward
IMF Bz component was observed, finishing out the day with
severe geomagnetic activity. The second severe storm
occurred at 1600 UT on 30 October when the CME

A09S40 1 of 10
A09S40 SUTTON ET AL.: SEVERE GEOMAGNETIC STORMS OF 2003
Figure 1. Latitude versus local time for CHAMP during
27 October to 2 November 2003.
associated with an X10 flare impacted the Earth. During this
storm, a southward IMF Bz component assured a severe
level of geomagnetic activity, during which time the plan-
etary aP index remained saturated at 400 for 6 hours. Early
on 31 October, activity began to decline, facilitated by a
northward IMF Bz component. Both CMEs had a transit
time of around 19 hours, making them among the fastest
recorded. In addition, this time span exhibited the highest
geomagnetic disturbances of the present solar cycle.
[3] The relationship between geomagnetic disturbances
and thermospheric composition, density, and winds has
been studied in depth for decades [Matuura, 1972; Prölss,
1980; Breig, 1987; Crowley, 1991]. The first discoveries of
this connection resulted from discrepancies between pre-
dicted and observed satellite ephemerides during periods of
geomagnetic activity. Early models for predicting thermo-
spheric density include the Jacchia total density models
[Jacchia, 1970] derived from satellite drag data. Zonal
winds were first studied by analyzing their average effect
on satellite orbits which was termed ‘‘superrotation’’ of the
atmosphere [King-Hele, 1964] and was estimated using
measurements of satellite inclination. More recent studies
of thermospheric conditions have utilized ground-based
incoherent scatter radar measurements of temperature and
in situ satellite measurements of total density and compo-
sition. The consolidation of these data is represented statis-
tically in the MSIS series of models [i.e., Hedin et al., 1977;
Hedin, 1983, 1987], and by the recent update to MSISe90
[Hedin, 1991], NRL-MSISe00 [Picone et al., 2002]. In a
similar fashion, a global empirical model of thermosphere
winds (HWM-93) was developed [Hedin et al., 1996] that
addresses a range of magnetic and solar conditions.
[4] The morphology of a geomagnetic storm is reviewed
in detail by Prölss [1980] and is related to changes in
composition, electric fields, neutral flow, and dynamo
effects all caused by an increase in energy input to the
high-latitude thermosphere-ionosphere system. In the
present paper, two elements indicative of these upper-
atmospheric disturbances are studied, namely in situ
2 of 10
A09S40
measurements of thermospheric total density and wind
speed derived from accelerometer measurements. Acceler-
ometer measurements have been used in the recent past to
estimate both total density [Berger and Barlier, 1981;
Forbes et al., 1996; Bruinsma et al., 2004] and wind speed
[Marcos and Forbes, 1985; Forbes et al., 1993] for quiet
and active conditions. Total density measurements represent
one measure of the global thermospheric response to
geomagnetic storms.
[5] The German satellite CHAMP (Challenging Minisa-
tellite Payload) was launched into a circular orbit on 15 July
2000. The project plan includes a 5-year mission duration to
study the gravity and magnetic fields of the Earth, with a
secondary goal of studying the upper atmosphere [Reigber
et al., 2002b]. One of the instruments on CHAMP is a
sensitive triaxial accelerometer that is capable of providing
estimates of total mass density and cross-track winds. With
a near-polar inclination, the satellite provides near-global
coverage at an approximate altitude of 410 km within two
local time sectors at most latitudes. Figure 1 illustrates the
sampling of CHAMP in local time and latitude for the
period of 27 October to 2 November 2003, and Figure 2
shows the angle between the cross-track axis and geographic
east for this time period. CHAMP’s high orbit inclination
thus allows for the study of zonal winds near equatorial
regions and meridional winds near the turning point of the
orbit (near ±87
) using the cross-track accelerometer axis.
The combination of these capabilities provides an unprec-
edented opportunity to view the global density and wind
responses to the unusually severe solar and geomagnetic
disturbances discussed previously. The primary objectives
of this paper are to describe the global density and wind
responses to these storms and to provide some interpreta-
tion. In addition, we provide comparisons with current
empirical models of density and winds in order to identify
their capabilities and shortcomings.
[6] In the following section, we discuss the density
retrieval procedure, necessary force models, and semiempir-
ical models used for comparison. In section 3.1, we analyze
Figure 2. The angle between the cross-track axis and
geographic east for CHAMP during 27 October to
2 November 2003.
A09S40 SUTTON ET AL.: SEVERE GEOMAGNETIC STORMS OF 2003
density response to elevated levels of geomagnetic activity at
all latitudes and examine departures from the NRL-MSISe00
density model. In section 3.2, we analyze cross-track winds
with an emphasis on low-latitude response to elevated levels
of geomagnetic activity. Finally, a summary of our results
and conclusions are given in section 4.
2. Data and Models
[7] CHAMP data was provided for our use by the
CHAMP Information System and Data Center (ISDC).
Acceleration, attitude, and orbit ephemeris data files were
used in the calculations pertaining to this study. The
acceleration and attitude data is provided on a 10-s interval,
which is processed from the original 1 Hz data to remove
spikes caused by spacecraft maneuvers. Both the in-track
axis, used for density calculations, and the cross-track axis,
used for wind calculations, are thought to be accurate to 3 
10
9 ms
2 [Reigber et al., 2002a]. The radial axis is not
used in these studies because it is less sensitive by a factor
of ten and has had repeated trouble since launch.
[8] In order to have the most accurate density calculations,
a bias and scale factor must be applied to the raw acceleration
data. For this study, a least squares method was used to
estimate the bias factors for the in-track accelerometer axes.
With this method, the bias factors are estimated by using the
STAR accelerometer measurements as an orbit determination
force model while letting the estimated orbit converge on the
Rapid Science Orbit ephemeris provided by the CHAMP
ISDC. The in-track a priori bias factor used for this time
period was
2.925  10
6 ms
2. The estimated values had a
mean of
2.92534  10
6 ms
2 and rms of 1.71 
10
8 ms
2. We considered biases to be inaccurate when they
differed from the mean by more than 4.5  10
8 ms
2. When
the numbers lie outside of this range, linear interpolation is
used. An error of 1% in the scale factor translates to less than
1% of error in total density, while an error of 1% in the bias
factor translates to an error of 2.5% in total density. For the
cross-track axis, the bias factor was calculated assuming that
on average for this time period, the measured cross-track
acceleration agrees with the modeled accelerations which
assume a corotating atmosphere. For this time period, the
cross-track bias factor was determined to be 1.145978 
10
7 ms
2. An error of 1% in the scale or bias factor
translates to an error of about 5 – 10 ms
1 in wind speed.
[9] On board the CHAMP satellite is the STAR acceler-
ometer, which measures the sum of all forces on the
satellite’s surface. This measured quantity is comprised
mostly of the force imparted to the satellite by atmospheric
drag, with lesser constituents such as solar and Earth
radiation pressure also contributing. All other nongravita-
tional forces on the satellite are neglected in this study.
Subtracting the modeled effects of radiation pressure, we are
left with the acceleration due to atmospheric drag. From
here we arrive at a solution for atmospheric density which is
a modification of the traditional drag equation taking into
account a 13-plate macromodel of the satellite:
r X13
aDRAG ¼

~ ½Ai CDi ð~
vrel  ^ni Þ~
vrel ; ð1Þ
2m i¼1
3 of 10
A09S40
where ~ aDRAG is the acceleration caused by drag, Ai is the
plate area, CDi is the coefficient of drag for the plate, m is
the satellite mass, ^ ni is the unit plate normal, r is the
atmospheric density, and ~ vrel is the satellite velocity relative
to a corotating atmosphere. Typical in-track magnitudes for
this term vary from 2  10
7 to 12  10
7 ms
2 over the
course of one orbit. This technique requires models to
account for the unwanted forces that are measured along
with drag by the STAR accelerometer. For each of these
models, orbit ephemeris files and quaternion files provided
by the CHAMP ISDC are used to orient the satellite with
respect to inertial space, terrestrial coordinates, and the Sun.
[10] The solar radiation pressure model also employs a
13-plate macromodel of the satellite. When the satellite is
sunlit, attitude quaternions are used to calculate an angle
between the satellite-Sun vector and the normal vector for
each plate that is facing the Sun. The following equation can
then be used to sum the entire force of the satellite due to
solar radiation [Luthcke et al., 1997]:
  
X
13
RAi cos finc;i crd;i  
aSR ¼
~
2 þ crs;i cos finc;i ^ni
mc 3
i¼1

 
þ 1
crs;i ^s ; ð2Þ
where ~ aSR is the acceleration caused by solar radiation
pressure, Ai is the plate area, c is the speed of light, crd,i is
the coefficient of diffusive reflectivity, crs,i is the coefficient
of specular reflectivity, m is the satellite mass, ^ ni is the unit
plate normal, finc,i is the angle of incidence of the Sun with
respect to the plate, R is the flux originating from the Sun,
and ^s is the unit satellite-Sun vector. The magnitude of solar
flux is also multiplied by a ratio to account for shadowing
when the satellite is in the umbra or penumbra shadow
regions. The modifying ratio is equivalent to the percentage
of the sun visible by the satellite. Finding the Sun-Earth
vector and the appropriate flux acting on the satellite
requires up-to-date JPL solar and planetary ephemerides
(version DE-405). Typical in-track magnitudes for this term
are on the order of 3  10
8 ms
2 during the time period
studied in this work.
[11] The albedo calculations require a latitudinally vary-
ing model for short-wave radiation (in terms of albedo) and
long-wave radiation (in terms of emissivity) coming from
the terrestrial sphere. The effect of the Earth is summed by
using discrete elements according to Knocke et al. [1988].
The following equation can be used to sum the effect of
each Earth element on each satellite plate:
  
13 X
X Rj Ai cos finc;ij crd;i  
aALB ¼
~
2 þ crs;i cos finc;ij ^ni
mc 3
i¼1 j

 
þ 1
crs;i ^sj ; ð3Þ
where ~aALB is the acceleration caused by Earth radiation
pressure, Ai is the plate area, c is the speed of light, crd,i is
the coefficient of diffusive reflectivity, crs,i is the coefficient
of specular reflectivity, m is the satellite mass, ^ ni is the unit
plate normal, finc,ij is the angle of incidence of the source
with respect to the plate, Rj is the flux originating from the
A09S40 SUTTON ET AL.: SEVERE GEOMAGNETIC STORMS OF 2003
source, and ^sj is the unit satellite-source vector. Both the
solar radiation pressure model and the albedo/infrared
models were adapted from the Geodyn II orbit determina-
tion software package (NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center). Typical in-track magnitudes for this term are on
the order of 5  10
10 and 2  10
10 ms
2 for albedo and
infrared radiation pressure, respectively.
[12] The final unknown in this process is the coefficient
of drag for each plate of the CHAMP macromodel. Usually,
these coefficients are solved for in terms of a density model
using orbit determination software. However, for this appli-
cation, we desire that the coefficient of drag not have the
same bias that the corresponding thermospheric density
model possesses. Therefore a physics-based model for
approximating the coefficient of drag for a flat plate was
used. This method is outlined by Cook [1965] and leads to
the following formula:
" sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
# the satellite mass, ^ni is the unit plate normal, rSTAR is the
2 Tw;i
CDi ¼2 1þ 1 þ ai
1 cosðqi Þ ;
3 Ta
where CDi is the coefficient of drag, ai is the accommoda-
tion coefficient, Ta is the temperature of the atmosphere, Tw,i
is the temperature of the plate, and qi is the angle of incident
gas flow with respect to the plate. Further, readmittance of
atmospheric molecules is assumed to be mainly diffusive
because the temperature of the satellite is fairly cool
(assumed to be 273.0 K). For macromodel plates that are
normal to the flow of atmospheric gases, this assumption
leads to an underestimation of CDi of about 2.5% for every
100.0 K temperature increase in Tw,i. This assumption also
leads to the following approximation for the accommoda-
tion coefficient that appears in (4):
3:6mi
ai ¼ ; ð5Þ
ð1 þ mi Þ2
where mi is the ratio of mass of the incident gas atom to the
mass of the surface atom. The force caused by impacting
and readmitting atoms and molecules can be represented by
the drag equation (1) in terms of the coefficient of drag, CDi.
In this study, the coefficient of lift is assumed to be small
enough to ignore. At its maximum, the force caused by lift
is an order of magnitude less than that caused by solar
radiation. Estimating neutral density requires modeling
surface forces other than drag, estimating instrument bias
and scale factors, and calculating the coefficient of drag.
After these steps are completed, (1) is solved for density
using the in-track axis of the accelerometer denoted by
aSTAR  ^x, giving:
~ harmonics. It is primarily based on wind data obtained from

2mð~aSTAR
~ aSR
~ aALB Þ  ^x
rSTAR ¼ P13 ; ð6Þ
i¼1 ½ A C ð~
v
i Di rel  ^
n Þð
i ~ vrel  ^xÞ
where rSTAR is the atmospheric density calculated from
CHAMP/STAR, and ^x is the unit vector of the in-track axis.
Normally, neutral wind velocity is considered to be the
largest source of error in this calculation. From calculations
using a simulated horizontal wind vector, we see that zonal
winds can skew density calculations by 5% for every
A09S40
100 ms
1. Meridional winds can skew density calculations
by 2.5% for every 100 ms
1. Under quiet geomagnetic
conditions, the error caused by horizontal winds rarely
exceeds 15% near the poles and 8% away from the poles.
However, under active conditions, the error can exceed 20%
in the close vicinity of the poles.
[13] It is also possible to obtain an estimate of the neutral
wind vector component in the direction of the cross-track
axis of the STAR accelerometer. This calculation requires
the same steps as the density calculations. The following
equation is now used as the drag equation:
rSTAR X
13
aDRAG ¼

~ fAi CDi ½ð~
vrel
~
wÞ  ^
ni ð~
vrel
~
wÞg; ð7Þ
2m i¼1
where ~ aDRAG is the acceleration caused by drag, Ai is the
plate area, CDi is the coefficient of drag for the plate, m is
atmospheric density calculated from CHAMP/STAR, and
ð4Þ
~
vrel is the satellite velocity with respect to a corotating
atmosphere. Here \vec{w} has been added as a vector
representing wind in relation to an atmosphere that corotates
with the Earth. Only the cross-track axis is studied here for
the following two reasons. Neutral density and wind speed
cannot be separated from each other in calculations using
the in-track accelerometer axis, and the radial accelerometer
axis does not provide measurements of sufficient accuracy.
Thus when solving equation (7) for wind speed, compo-
nents of ~w in the in-track and radial directions are assumed
to be zero. The density term in equation (7) is now the
neutral density derived from the in-track accelerometer axis.
[14] The NRL-MSISe00 thermospheric density model
[Picone et al., 2002] is used for comparisons to the
CHAMP/STAR density calculations. This model is an
extension of the MSIS-83, -86, and -e90 versions [Hedin,
1983, 1987, 1991]. All of these models are error weight
nonlinear least squares fits of atmospheric composition data
measured by mass spectrometers, and neutral temperature
profiles measured by incoherent scatter radars, to empirical
formulas. The NRL model also includes satellite drag data
and calculations of anomalous oxygen in the atmosphere.
The required inputs for the model are the satellite position,
day of the year, solar local time, F10.7 solar flux from the
previous day, mean F10.7 solar flux from 81 days centered
on the current day, and a 57-hour history of the aP index.
[15] The HWM-93 thermospheric wind model [Hedin et
al., 1996], is used for comparisons to the CHAMP/STAR
cross-track wind calculations. The HWM is a error weight
nonlinear least squares fit to a truncated set of spherical
the AE-E and DE-2 satellites. Both satellites had highly
eccentric orbits. AE-E had an inclination of 20
and only
analyzed cross-track drift speeds, making zonal wind stud-
ies difficult and high-latitude studies impossible. DE-2 had
a near-Polar orbit making it a better candidate for compar-
ison with CHAMP cross-track winds [Killeen and Roble,
1988]. However, the DE-2 mission time span was too short
to capture any long-term variability. Inputs to the model
include the satellite position, day of the year, solar local
time, F10.7 solar flux from the previous day, mean F10.7
solar flux from 81 days centered on the current day, current
4 of 10
A09S40 SUTTON ET AL.: SEVERE GEOMAGNETIC STORMS OF 2003 A09S40

Figure 3. Latitude versus time, daytime response of CHAMP total mass densities at 410 km (top left),
the corresponding NRL-MSISe00 model densities sampled along the CHAMP orbit (top right), nighttime
response of CHAMP (bottom left), and corresponding NRL-MSISe00 model densities (bottom right).
Also shown are the Northern Polar Cap Index (top solid line in each panel), and 3-hourly Ap index
(bottom solid line in each panel).

3-hour aP index, and daily AP index. Lower-latitude winds
are thought to be reproduced well by the model, while the
structure of higher-latitude winds is somewhat lost by the
simplicity of the spherical harmonic basis function.
3. Results
3.1. Density Response
[16] The daytime and nighttime global density responses
at 410 km are illustrated in Figure 3. NRL-MSISe00 model
response is also shown, sampled on the orbit of CHAMP, to
draw comparisons and reveal any shortcomings of the
model. For each case, density response is shown in terms
of latitude and time, with geomagnetic aP and northern
Polar Cap indices (Danish Meteorological Institute, http://
www.dmi.dk/projects/wdcc1/) indicated. Near the equator,
local solar time sampling is approximately 1320 and
0120 hours, respectively. When CHAMP is at maximum
latitude, local time is approximately 0720 near the North
Pole and 1920 near the South Pole. However, local time
sampling does not change substantially from the equator
until CHAMP is above ±80
latitude. This complexity,
caused by the fact that CHAMP is not in a perfectly polar
orbit, is illustrated in Figure 1.
[17] During this period of elevated activity, there are two
time intervals in which the aP index becomes saturated at
400, first for 3 hours early on 29 October (day 302) and then
again for 6 hours at the end of 31 October (day 304). In
between these two intervals, there is an active period of
about 9 hours where aP reaches 300. During the first surge
of geomagnetic activity, severe elevated levels of density
can be seen confined to certain latitudes. On the dayside,
elevated density levels of order 300% (the highest of this
time period) can be seen in high northern latitudes. How-
ever, this density enhancement seems to die out within an
hour and a half, indicating that the first spike in geomag-

5 of 10
A09S40 SUTTON ET AL.: SEVERE GEOMAGNETIC STORMS OF 2003
netic activity does not last long enough to have a global
effect on density. On the nightside, density enhancements
last longer and can even be seen to travel toward the equator
with time. During the second spike in which aP reaches 300,
density is more noticeably affected. On the dayside, a major
density disturbance of amplitude 200– 250% spans from
85
latitude to the equator and lasts for upward of 9 hours.
Much more activity can be seen in the southern hemisphere
as well. Dayside density enhancements exhibit much less
dispersion to lower latitudes in comparison to the nightside
density disturbances.
[18] Several of the above response characteristics are
reminiscent of those revealed in accelerometer measure-
ments near 200 km, interpreted by Forbes et al. [1996] in
the context of the thermosphere modeling results of Fuller-
Rowell et al. [1996]. For instance the nighttime density
disturbances appear to more readily propagate to equatorial
latitudes at night, possibly facilitated by the predominant
equatorward flow in both hemispheres at nighttime due to
the diurnal tides driven by in situ EUV heating [Forbes and
Garrett, 1976]. During daytime, the flow is predominantly
poleward, inhibiting equatorward extension of the density
disturbances in both hemispheres. During both day and
night, horizontal advection and subsidence heating may be
playing a role in heating the low-latitude thermosphere. It is
not understood why the daytime response in the summer
hemisphere is less intense than that in the Northern Hemi-
sphere. Although this period is between equinox and
solstice, there is probably also a solstice-like net (diurnal
mean) meridional flow from the South Hemisphere to North
Hemisphere which modulates the above dependence of the
density response at lower latitudes on time of day. This
could also be caused by NRL-MSISe00 model inadequacy
when attempting to normalize total density measurements to
a height of 410 km. During this time period perigee of
CHAMP is close to the North Pole, which might explain an
increased response in the Northern Hemisphere.
[19] The nighttime response can also be viewed in the
context of traveling atmospheric disturbances (TADs). If we
assume that a nighttime TAD has a velocity of 750 ms
1,
successive orbits would observe movement between 32 and
38
latitude, depending on whether the disturbance is
southbound or northbound. While there are many distur-
bances in this time period that have the potential of being a
TAD, the large amount of latitudinal displacement between
successive CHAMP orbits makes it difficult to identify a
TAD with any certainty.
[20] The geomagnetic storm response using the NRL-
MSISe00 model is driven by two parameters: a 57-hour
history of the aP index and F10.7 solar flux measurements,
adjusted to 1 AU. During geomagnetically quiet periods,
these two indices do fairly well at representing global
density variations with a slight mean difference between
modeled values and measured values. This can be seen by
comparing prestorm modeled and measured density on 27
and 28 October (day 300 and 301) in Figure 3. However,
when this model is applied to storm time conditions, two
problems arise: (1) Planetary indices do not contain enough
information to empirically emulate small-scale density
structure, and (2) the aP index has a saturation point at
400 which precludes the model density from exhibiting the
same extrema as the measured densities. Another shortcom-
6 of 10
A09S40
ing of the NRL-MSISe00 model is that it uses statistically
based empirical fits to represent density and hence tends to
smear out density response features both spatially and
temporally. The effects of these issues can be seen in
Figure 3.
[21] During times of elevated magnetic activity, daytime
density measurements are higher than modeled density by
as much as a factor of 2. While modeled density seems to be
symmetric about the equator for day and nighttime density,
this is clearly not consistent with measured values, espe-
cially on the dayside.
[22] Note that just after 1200 UT on day 301, there is an
enhancement in density of order 100% extending between

40 and +60
on the dayside but not on the nightside.
Given that this is a period of very quiet geomagnetic
activity, we believe that this is the response to a large solar
EUV flare that occurred near 1100 UT on day 301, as
observed by the SEE instrument on the TIMED spacecraft
(T. Woods, private communication, 2003). A recent study of
these EUV events can be found in a paper by Tsurutani et al.
[2005]. The possibility of an EUV flare response being
evident in CHAMP density data on day 301, and again
during a major solar EUV flare on day 308, is currently
undergoing further investigation and will be reported on
separately.
[23] Equatorial density responses for the October through
November time series can be seen in Figure 4, for daytime
and nighttime orbits. Both plots reveal a 3- to 6-hour delay
between the onset of geomagnetic activity and equatorial
density response. However, the amplitude of equatorial
response to the first impulse of geomagnetic activity differs
between dayside and nightside. During the night, disturban-
ces are free to travel equatorward, while the dayside
equatorial response is small. To an unknown extent, the
equatorial density enhancement may also be due to subsi-
dence heating, facilitated by the nighttime equatorward flow
connected with diurnal EUV heating.
3.2. Cross-Track Winds
[24] Studies of thermospheric winds are somewhat
sparse, and in many cases, the methods used limit their
comparability. For this reason, it is difficult to validate the
measurements from CHAMP/STAR. Our estimates indi-
cate that CHAMP/STAR wind measurements are accurate
to about 60– 100 ms
1. These estimates take into account
model error, bias factor error, accelerometer precision, and
the error in the total density using a ‘‘propagation of
uncertainty’’ statistical technique. Figure 5 illustrates the
behavior of the measured winds in the cross-track direction
for day and night orbits during days 300– 306 (27 October
to 2 November). Owing to the orbit constraints of CHAMP,
the cross-track axis measures winds predominantly in the
east-west direction at middle to low latitudes (refer to
Figure 2). However, above ±80
latitude, the cross-track
axis is oriented predominantly in the meridional direction,
becoming fully north-south at the point of highest latitude
for the orbit (±87
). At the equator, red indicates eastward
winds for both day and night. Above ±80
, red indicates
northward winds for daytime orbits (top) and southward
winds for nighttime orbits (bottom). The HWM-93 wind
model has also been sampled on CHAMP’s orbit and the
vector winds projected into the cross-track direction to best
A09S40 SUTTON ET AL.: SEVERE GEOMAGNETIC STORMS OF 2003 A09S40

winds by the cross-track accelerometer. Near 1320 LT zonal

winds are consistently westward, on the order of
100 to

150 ms
1 during times of low activity. The top panel of
Figure 6 shows a westward wind of
300 ms
1 during the
period of highest activity at the beginning of day 304.
HWM-93 is consistent with CHAMP/STAR observations
during the quiet daytime. During active periods, however,
the model overestimates the observed wind enhancements
by about 50%, except during the aforementioned excursion
to 300 ms
1 where the HWM-93 model yields 250 ms
1.
[27] The bottom panel of Figure 6 compares nighttime
winds from CHAMP/STAR and HWM93. When geomag-
netic activity is low, the measured nightside winds are on
Figure 4. Daytime (top) and nighttime (bottom) equatorial
response of total density from CHAMP/STAR and NRL-
MSISe00. Also shown is the 3-hour Ap index.
illustrate similarities and differences. The HWM-93 results
are shown in the right panels of Figure 5.
[25] One of the most noticeable traits exhibited by the
thermospheric wind measurements is the combined effect of
the longitude and universal time sampling of CHAMP,
consisting of a combination of the so-called ‘‘longitude-
UT’’ effect and the displacement between geographic and
geomagnetic coordinates. These effects can be seen in the
polar regions of both dayside and nightside orbits as an
apparent 24-hour periodicity, which is also reflected in the
HWM-93 model results. Owing to the complexity of the
cross-track sampling in the polar regions, it is not obvious
how to connect our results with any specific neutral circu-
lation pattern (i.e., two-cell), and we will not discuss the
polar region wind results further. We simply note that the
overall magnitudes and patterns inferred from the cross-
track accelerations follow similar patterns to that of HMW-
93, hence serving as a crude validation of the accelerometer
methodology for deriving neutral winds.
[26] Near the equator (see Figure 6), the high inclination
of the CHAMP orbit permits a good measure of the zonal
7 of 10
average only slightly positive (25 ms
1), whereas HWM-
93 yields eastward winds of order 50 – 75 ms
1. This
difference is within the estimated 60– 100 ms
1 errors for
our wind measurements. While the dayside winds increase
in magnitude due to the increase in geomagnetic activity (cf.
top panel of Figure 6), nightside equatorial winds are seen
to reverse direction, reaching speeds as high as 275 ms
1.
This shift in direction can also be seen to a lesser extent (0
to
50 ms
1) in the HWM-93 model.
[28] The normal undisturbed behavior of the neutral
wind at equatorial latitudes according to the WATS
instrument on Dynamics Explorer [Wharton et al.,
1984; Wu et al., 1994] is westward during the day and
eastward at night, with maximum wind speeds of order
100 ms
1. The majority of data from DE/WATS is
between 300– 400 km. This behavior is also reflected in
HWM-93, which is based in part on DE wind measure-
ments. However, analyses of equatorial DE/WATS winds
by Wu et al. [1994] and equatorial UARS/WINDII winds
near 250 km by Fejer et al. [2000] reveal rather small
differences between active and quiet geomagnetic con-
ditions. On the other hand, it is important to keep in
mind that the present events are unusually large in
magnitude and that reversals of nighttime zonal winds
have been observed under extremely active magnetic
conditions [Meriwether et al., 1986; Burnside et al.,
1991].
[29] The largest differences between CHAMP equatorial
wind measurements and those consistent with HWM-93, are
the unusually large westward accelerations at night occur-
ring in conjunction with large geomagnetic disturbances.
Changes in the zonal neutral wind speed are governed by
the zonal momentum equation:
@Un
¼
nin ðUn
Ui Þ þ pressure gradient term
@t
þ viscous term þ other terms; ð8Þ
where Un is the zonal neutral velocity, Ui is the zonal ion
velocity, and nin is the collision frequency of an ion with
neutral gas [see Herrero et al., 1985]. Further, it is known
that in the equatorial region zonal winds tend to produce
zonal ion drifts of similar magnitude and direction
[Rishbeth, 1971; Fejer et al., 1985; Crain et al., 1993;
Richmond et al., 1992]. Kamide and Matsushita [1981]
speculated that during geomagnetically active periods, a
low-latitude upward electric field is caused by penetration
of high-latitude electric fields in the premidnight local time
A09S40 SUTTON ET AL.: SEVERE GEOMAGNETIC STORMS OF 2003 A09S40

Figure 5. Daytime response of CHAMP and HWM-93 cross-track wind speeds near 410 km (top). At
middle and low latitudes, red indicates eastward winds and near the poles red indicates northward winds.
Nighttime response of CHAMP and HWM-93 cross-track wind speed near 410 km (bottom). At middle
and low latitudes, red indicates eastward winds and near the poles red indicates southward winds.

region. The effect of this is a westward ion drift and hence
would lead to an increased westward neutral wind
acceleration according to (8). This phenomenon has also
been observed in the postmidnight local time region at
Arecibo [Burnside et al., 1991], but in this case it was
deduced that an increase in ion-drag was responsible for a
reversal of the normal eastward zonal wind. For the
measurements presented here, it is not possible to unequi-
vocally determine if the observed westward surges at night
are due to changes in ion drifts or ion densities or both.
Examination of GPS TEC measurements (International GPS
Service, http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov) at low latitudes sampled
near the CHAMP orbit do reveal, however, enhancements in
the anomaly peaks during midday, and decreases in
equatorial-region TEC values at night (see Figure 7). Both
suggest equatorial penetration of electric fields and a
reduction in plasma collisions with neutrals. It is thus clear
that the CHAMP measurements are revealing the neutral
wind responses to significant plasma-neutral electrody-
namic interaction events that suggest further experimental
and modeling studies.
4. Summary and Conclusions
[30] We have shown that during times of extreme geo-
magnetic activity, thermosphere densities near 410 km
exhibit enhancements of 200 – 300%. On the dayside, these
enhancements are confined mostly to the Northern Hemi-
sphere between the equator and 80
latitude. If not caused
by the height sampling of CHAMP, we cannot explain the
origin of this latitudinal asymmetry in the density response.
During nighttime, density enhancements spread much more
readily to equatorial latitudes, and we suggest that this is
facilitated by the nighttime equatorward flow that accom-
panies the diurnal variation in EUV heating. Traveling
atmospheric disturbances would be expected to exist during
nighttime conditions based upon analyses of CHAMP
density data during the 15 – 24 April 2002 storm study

8 of 10
A09S40 SUTTON ET AL.: SEVERE GEOMAGNETIC STORMS OF 2003 A09S40

period (J. M. Forbes et al., manuscript in preparation, 2004).

However, owing to the sampling of CHAMP and the
complexity of the present storm interval, it is difficult to
unequivocally establish their presence or analyze their
movement.
[31] An apparent 24-hour periodicity appears both in the
high-latitude wind measurements and in HWM-93. We
interpret this as some combination of the so-called ‘‘longi-
tude-UT effect’’ and the displacement between geomagnetic
and geographic coordinates (i.e., the convection-driven
neutral winds tend to be ordered in the geomagnetic frame)
and moreover as a validation of the CHAMP winds.
Unfortunately, although at 87
N and 87
S the CHAMP
cross-track winds are in the meridional direction, these
measurements occur at dawn and dusk and do not sense
the significant antisunward flow that would be expected
from the convection driven circulation at these latitudes
under very disturbed conditions. Similarly, at ±60
latitude,
CHAMP is sampling near midday and midnight, far from Figure 7. Total electron content (TEC) sampled for
the dawn and dusk periods where significant convection- daytime CHAMP orbits (top) and nighttime CHAMP orbits
driven zonal winds might be expected to exist. Therefore (bottom).
and given the difficult geometry of the cross-track winds at
high latitudes and the associated ambiguities and uncertain-
ties, we have not attempted an extensive analysis of the high-latitude wind patterns. As a follow-up to this study, we
intend to obtain a better global view by comparing similar
measurements from the GRACE satellites which sampled
local times near 0400 and 1600 during this time period.
[32] Near the equator, measured zonal winds reveal
westward surges of order 100 – 200 ms
1 in conjunction
with an increase in magnetic activity during both day and
night. The observed effect is shorter-lived (but of roughly
similar magnitude) than a similar feature contained in
HWM-93 under daytime conditions but exceeds the mag-
nitude of the nighttime HMW-93 response (100 ms
1) by
about a factor of two. These data-model differences are not
surprising considering the large magnitudes of the geomag-
netic disturbances; however, it is also possible that this
difference is caused by an error in the cross-track bias
factor. It is not possible from our measurements to deter-
mine whether changes in plasma densities and/or zonal
plasma drifts driven by penetrating electric fields are the
root cause of the observed effects. We hope that our
experimental results will provide useful comparisons for
three-dimensional general circulation models of the thermo-
sphere and ionosphere that include self-consistent neutral
and plasma dynamics.
[33] For those interested in obtaining the CHAMP/STAR
winds and densities for further interpretation and
collaborative studies, please visit our web site (http://odo.
colorado.edu/suttonek).

[34] Acknowledgments. The authors acknowledge the GeoFor-

schungsZentrum Potsdam (http://www.gfz-potsdam.de), who provided data
from the CHAMP satellite used for this study. The authors also thank Sean
Bruinsma for helpful discussions. This work was supported under grant
ATM-0208482 from the National Science Foundation as part of the
National Space Weather Program.
[35] Arthur Richmond thanks Sean Bruinsma and Douglas Drob for
their assistance in evaluating this paper.

References
Figure 6. Daytime (top) and nighttime (bottom) zonal
Berger, C., and F. Barlier (1981), Asymmetrical structure in the thermo-
wind speed at the geographic equator from CHAMP/STAR sphere during magnetic storms as deduced from the CACTUS acceler-
and HWM-93. Also shown is the 3-hour Ap index. ometer data, Adv. Space Res., 1(12), 231 – 235.

9 of 10
A09S40 SUTTON ET AL.: SEVERE GEOMAGNETIC STORMS OF 2003
Breig, E. L. (1987), Thermospheric ion and neutral composition and chem-
istry, Rev. Geophys., 25, 455 – 470.
Bruinsma, S., D. Tamagnan, and R. Biancale (2004), Atmospheric density
derived from CHAMP/STAR accelerometer observations, Planet. Space
Sci., 52, 297 – 312.
Burnside, R. G., C. A. Tepley, M. P. Sulzer, T. J. Fuller-Rowell, D. G. Torr,
and R. G. Roble (1991), The neutral thermosphere at Arecibo during
geomagnetic storms, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 1289 – 1301.
Cook, G. E. (1965), Satellite drag coefficients, Planet. Space Sci., 13, 929 –
946.
Crain, D. J., R. A. Heelis, G. J. Bailey, and A. D. Richmond (1993), Low-
latitude plasma drifts from a simulation of the global atmospheric
dynamo, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 6039 – 6046.
Crowley, G. (1991), Dynamics of the Earth’s thermosphere: A review, Rev.
Geophys., 29, 1143 – 1165.
Fejer, B. G., E. Kudeki, and D. T. Farley (1985), Equatorial F region zonal
plasma drifts, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 12,249 – 12,255.
Fejer, B. G., J. T. Emmert, G. G. Shepherd, and B. H. Solheim (2000),
Average daytime F region disturbance neutral winds measured by UARS,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 27(13), 1859 – 1862.
Forbes, J. M., and H. B. Garrett (1976), Solar diurnal tide in the thermo-
sphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 33, 2226 – 2241.
Forbes, J. M., R. Roble, and F. A. Marcos (1993), Magnetic activity de-
pendence of high-latitude thermospheric winds and densities below
200 km, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 13,693 – 13,702.
Forbes, J. M., R. Gonzalez, F. A. Marcos, D. Revelle, and H. Parish (1996),
Magnetic storm response of lower thermosphere density, J. Geophys.
Res., 101, 2313 – 2319.
Fuller-Rowell, T. J., M. V. Codrescu, H. Rishbeth, R. J. Moffett, and
S. Quegan (1996), On the seasonal response of the thermosphere and
ionosphere to geomagnetic storms, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 2343 – 2354.
Hedin, A. E. (1983), A revised thermospheric model based on mass spec-
trometer and incoherent scatter data: MSIS-83, J. Geophys. Res., 88,
10,170.
Hedin, A. E. (1987), MSIS-86 thermospheric model, J. Geophys. Res., 92,
4649.
Hedin, A. E. (1991), Extension of the MSIS thermosphere model in the
middle and lower atmosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 1159.
Hedin, A. E., et al. (1977), A global thermospheric model based on mass
spectrometer and incoherent scatter data MSIS: 1. N2 density and tem-
perature, J. Geophys. Res., 82, 2139 – 2147.
Hedin, A. E., et al. (1996), Emperical wind model for the upper, middle,
and lower atmosphere, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 58, 1421 – 1447.
Herrero, F. A., H. G. Mayr, N. W. Spencer, A. E. Hedin, and B. G. Fejer
(1985), Interaction of zonal winds with the equatorial midnight pressure
bulge in the Earth’s thermosphere: Empirical check of momentum bal-
ance, Geophys. Res. Lett., 12, 491 – 494.
Jacchia, L. G. (1970), New static models of the thermosphere and exo-
sphere with empirical temperature profiles, Spec. Rep. 313, Smithson.
Astrophys. Obs., Cambridge, Mass.
Kamide, Y., and S. Matsushita (1981), Penetration of high-latitude electric
fields into low latitudes, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 43, 411 – 425.
10 of 10
A09S40
Killeen, T. L., and R. G. Roble (1988), Thermosphere dynamics: Contribu-
tions from the first 5 years of the Dynamics Explorer program, Rev.
Geophys., 26, 329 – 367.
King-Hele, D. G. (1964), The rotational speed of the upper atmosphere
determined from changes in satellite orbits, Planet. Space Sci., 12, 801.
Knocke, P. C., J. C. Ries, and B. D. Tapley (1988), Earth radiation pressure
effects on satellites, AIAA, 88 – 4292 – CP.
Luthcke, S. B., J. A. Marshall, S. C. Rowton, K. E. Rachlin, and C. M. Cox
(1997), Enhanced radiative force modeling of the tracking and data relay
satellites, J. Astronaut. Sci., 45(3), 349 – 370.
Marcos, F. A., and J. M. Forbes (1985), Thermospheric winds from the
satellite electrostatic triaxial accelerometer system, J. Geophys. Res., 90,
6543 – 6552.
Matuura, N. (1972), Theoretical models of ionospheric storms, Space Sci.
Rev., 13, 124 – 189.
Meriwether, J. W., Jr., J. W. Moody, M. A. Biondi, and R. G. Roble
(1986), Optical interferometric measurements of nighttime equatorial
thermospheric winds at Arequipa, Peru, J. Geophys. Res., 91, 5557 –
5566.
Picone, J. M., A. E. Hedin, D. P. Drob, and A. C. Aikin (2002),
NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical compari-
sons and scientific issues, J. Geophys. Res., 107(A12), 1468,
doi:10.1029/2002JA009430.
Prölss, G. W. (1980), Magnetic storm associated perturbations of the upper
atmosphere: Recent results obtained by satellite-borne gas analyzers, Rev.
Geophys., 18(1), 183 – 202.
Reigber, C., et al. (2002a), A high-quality global gravity field model from
CHAMP GPS tracking data and accelerometry (EIGEN-1S), Geophys.
Res. Lett., 29(14), 1692, doi:10.1029/2002GL015064.
Reigber, C., H. Lühr, and P. Schwintzer (2002b), CHAMP mission status
and perspectives, Eos Trans. AGU, 81(48), Fall Meet. Suppl., F307.
Richmond, A. D., E. C. Ridley, and R. G. Roble (1992), A thermosphere/
ionosphere general circulation model with coupled electrodynamics, Geo-
phys. Res. Lett., 19(6), 601 – 604.
Rishbeth, H. (1971), Polarization fields produced by winds in the equatorial
F region, Planet. Space Sci., 19(3), 357 – 369.
Tsurutani, B. T., et al. (2005), The October 28, 2003 extreme EUV solar
flare and resultant extreme ionopheric effects, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32,
L03S09, doi:10.1029/2004GL021475.
Wharton, L. E., N. W. Spencer, and H. G. Mayr (1984), The Earth’s thermo-
spheric superrotation from Dynamics Explorer 2, Geophys. Res. Lett., 11,
531 – 533.
Wu, Q., T. L. Killeen, and N. W. Spencer (1994), Dynamics Explorer-2
observations of equatorial thermospheric winds and temperatures, J. Geo-
phys. Res., 99, 6277 – 6288.























J. M. Forbes, R. S. Nerem, and E. K. Sutton, Department of Aerospace
Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado, UCB 429, Boulder, CO
80309, USA. (forbes@colorado.edu; nerem@colorado.edu; eric.sutton@
colorado.edu)