Geomagnetic storm is one of the most powerful factors affecting the state of the Earth’s ionosphere. Revealing the significance of formation mechanisms for ionospheric storms is still an unresolved problem. The purpose of the study is to obtain a statistical pattern of the response in regional electron content to geomagnetic storms on a global scale to interpret the results using the upper atmosphere model (the Global Self-consistent Model of the Thermosphere, Ionosphere, and Protonosphere), to make the detailed comparison with the thermospheric storm concept, and to compare the obtained pattern with results from previous statistical studies. The regional electron content is calculated based on the global ionospheric maps data, which allows us to cover the midlatitude and high-latitude zones of both hemispheres, as well as the equatorial zone. Most of the obtained statistical pattern agrees with the thermospheric storm concept and with the previous statistical studies: ionospheric responses at ionospheric storm main phases including their seasonal dependences for the high- and midlatitudes and some features of ionospheric responses at recovery phases. However, some of the statistical patterns are inconsistent with the thermospheric storm concept or contradicts the previous statistical studies: negative midlatitude ionospheric responses at recovery phases in the local winter, the domination of the spring response in the equatorial zone, seasonal features of the positive after-effects, the interhemispheric asymmetry of ionospheric responses, and the prestorm enhancement. We obtained that the contribution of electric field to the interpretation of the zonal and diurnal averaged storm-time regional electron content (REC) disturbances is insignificant. The positive after-storm effects at different latitudes are caused by n(O) disturbances.

Global navigation satellite systems provide important data sets that can be used to study the influence of various space weather factors. We analyzed the effects of the main phase of the May 2024 extreme geomagnetic storm on the ionosphere and GPS kinematic precise point positioning (PPP). ROTI and global ionospheric maps showed the ionospheric dynamics. The auroral oval expanded up to low latitudes: up to 30°N in the American sector and up to 45°N in the European–Asian sector during the main phase of the geomagnetic storm. The ROTI peaked at 2 TECU/min, which is four times as much against the background. The equatorial anomaly crest intensified considerably (up to 200 TECU) and shifted poleward in the American sector. The counter-propagation finally caused the equatorial anomaly to cross the auroral oval boundary. The ROTI correlated with errors in the kinematic PPP. Positioning errors increased 1.5–5 times at the boundary of the auroral oval. Increased positioning errors propagated according to the shift of the auroral oval boundary. The geomagnetic storm significantly affected the positioning and the ionosphere, threatening various applications based on navigation and communication.

Two strong earthquakes occurred in Turkey on 6 February 2023, at 01:17:34 (nighttime, Mw = 7.8) and at 10:24:50 UT (daytime, Mw = 7.5). The seismo-ionospheric impact is an important part of the near-Earth environment state. This paper provides the first results on the ionospheric effects associated with the aforementioned earthquakes. We used data from global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receivers and ionosondes. We found that both earthquakes generated circle disturbance in the ionosphere, detected by GNSS data. The amplitude of the ionospheric response caused by daytime M7.5 earthquake exceeded by five times that caused by nighttime M7.8 earthquake: 0.5 TECU/min and 0.1 TECU/min, respectively, according to the ROTI data. The velocities of the earthquake-related ionospheric waves were ~2000 m/s, as measured by ROTI, for the M7.5 earthquake. TEC variations with 2–10 min periods showed velocities from 1500 to 900 m/s as disturbances evolved. Ionospheric disturbances occurred around epicenters and propagated to the south by means of 2–10 min TEC variations. ROTI data showed a more symmetric distribution with irregularities observed both to the South and to the North from 10:24:50 UT epicenter. The ionospheric effects were recorded over 750 km from the epicenters. Ionosonde located 420/490 km from the epicenters did not catch ionospheric effects. The results show significant asymmetry in the propagation of coseismic ionospheric disturbances. We observed coseismic ionospheric disturbances associated with Rayleigh mode and acoustic modes, but we did not observe disturbances associated with acoustic gravity mode.

Global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) provide a great data source about the ionosphere state. These data can be used for testing ionosphere models. We studied the performance of nine ionospheric models (Klobuchar, NeQuickG, BDGIM, GLONASS, IRI-2016, IRI-2012, IRI-Plas, NeQuick2, and GEMTEC) both in the total electron content (TEC) domain—i.e., how precise the models calculate TEC—and in the positioning error domain—i.e., how the models improve single frequency positioning. The whole data set covers 20 years (2000–2020) from 13 GNSS stations, but the main analysis involves data during 2014–2020 when calculations are available from all the models. We used single-frequency positioning without ionospheric correction and with correction via global ionospheric maps (IGSG) data as expected limits for errors. Improvements against noncorrected solution were as follows: GIM IGSG—22.0%, BDGIM—15.3%, NeQuick2—13.8%, GEMTEC, NeQuickG and IRI-2016—13.3%, Klobuchar—13.2%, IRI-2012—11.6%, IRI-Plas—8.0%, GLONASS—7.3%. TEC bias and mean absolute TEC errors for the models are as follows: GEMTEC—−0.3 and 2.4 TECU, BDGIM—−0.7 and 2.9 TECU, NeQuick2—−1.2 and 3.5 TECU, IRI-2012—−1.5 and 3.2 TECU, NeQuickG—−1.5 and 3.5 TECU, IRI-2016—−1.8 and 3.2 TECU, Klobuchar—1.2 and 4.9 TECU, GLONASS—−1.9 and 4.8 TECU, and IRI-Plas—3.1 and 4.2 TECU. While TEC and positioning domains differ, new-generation operational models (BDGIM and NeQuickG) could overperform or at least be at the same level as classical empirical models.

Global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) allow estimating total electron content (TEC). However, it is still a problem to calculate absolute ionosphere parameters from GNSS data: negative TEC values could appear, and most of existing algorithms does not enable to estimate TEC spatial gradients and TEC time derivatives. We developed an algorithm to recover the absolute non-negative vertical and slant TEC, its derivatives and its gradients, as well as the GNSS equipment differential code biases (DCBs) by using the Taylor series expansion and bounded-variable least-squares. We termed this algorithm TuRBOTEC. Bounded-variable least-squares fitting ensures non-negative values of both slant TEC and vertical TEC. The second order Taylor series expansion could provide a relevant TEC spatial gradients and TEC time derivatives. The technique validation was performed by using independent experimental data over 2014 and the IRI-2012 and IRI-plas models. As a TEC source we used Madrigal maps, CODE (the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe) global ionosphere maps (GIM), the IONOLAB software, and the SEEMALA-TEC software developed by Dr. Seemala. For the Asian mid-latitudes TuRBOTEC results agree with the GIM and IONOLAB data (root-mean-square was < 3 TECU), but they disagree with the SEEMALA-TEC and Madrigal data (root-mean-square was >10 TECU). About 9% of vertical TECs from the TuRBOTEC estimates exceed (by more than 1 TECU) those from the same algorithm but without constraints. The analysis of TEC spatial gradients showed that as far as 10–15° on latitude, TEC estimation error exceeds 10 TECU. Longitudinal gradients produce smaller error for the same distance. Experimental GLObal Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) DCB from TuRBOTEC and CODE peaked 15 TECU difference, while GPS DCB agrees. Slant TEC series indicate that the TuRBOTEC data for GLONASS are physically more plausible.

Over recent years, global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs) have been increasingly used to study near-Earth space. The basis for such studies is the total electron content (TEC) data. Standard procedures for detecting TEC wave signatures include variation selection and detrending. Our experience showed that the inaccurate procedure causes artifacts in datasets which might affect data interpretation, particularly in automated processing. We analyzed the features of various detrending and variation selection methods. We split the problem of the GNSS data filtering into two subproblems: detrending and variation selection. We examined centered moving average, centered moving median, 6th-order polynomial, Hodrick–Prescott filter, L1 filter, cubic smoothing spline, double-applied moving average for the GNSS-TEC detrending problem, and centered moving average, centered moving median, Butterworth filter, type I Chebyshev filter for the GNSS-TEC variation selection problem in this paper. We carried out the analysis based on both model and experimental data. Modeling was based on simple analytical models as well as the International Reference Ionosphere. Analysis of TEC variations of 2–10 min, 10–20 min, and 20–60 min under insufficient detrending conditions showed that the higher errors appear for the longer periods (20–60 min). For the detrending problem, the smoothing cubic spline provided the best results among the algorithms discussed in this paper. The spline detrending featured the minimal value of the mean bias error (MBE) and the root-mean-square error (RMSE), as well as high correlation coefficient. The 6th-order polynomial also produced good results. Spline detrending does not introduce a RMSE more than 0.25 TECU and MBE > 0.35 TECU for IRI trends, while, for the 6th-order polynomial, these errors can exceed 1 TECU in some cases. However, in 95% of observations the RMSE and MBE do not exceed 0.05 TECU. For the variation selection, the centered moving average filter showed the best performance among the algorithms discussed in this paper.