ISSN 1990 7931, Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 2013, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 589593. Pleiades Publishing, Ltd.

., 2013. Original Russian Text A.A. Namgaladze, 2013, published in Khimicheskaya Fizika, 2013, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 913.

CHEMICAL PHYSICS OF ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENA

Earthquakes and Global Electrical Circuit

A. A. Namgaladze
Murmansk State Technical University, Murmansk, Russia e mail: namgaladze@yandex.ru
Received November 15, 2012

AbstractBased on recent experimental and theoretical model results, the role of earthquakes and processes of their preparation as electricity sources in the global electric circuit (GEC) is discussed. In addition to the traditional elements of the GEC, such as thunderstorm currents, ionosphere currents, fair weather currents, and telluric currents, hypothetical seismogenic currents flowing between the faults and the ionosphere are considered. The ionization sources for these currents are presumably the radiation of radioactive gases and the ionization by the electric field of so called positive holes created by the compression of tectonic plates, whereas transportation of electric charges between the Earth and the ionosphere occurs under the action of electric fields and turbulent diffusion (for heavy charged species). Seismogenic currents deliver electric charges into the ionosphere, which give rise to electric fields in it and in the magnetically conjugated region. The drift of magnetized plasma in the ionosphere F2 region and plasmasphere plasma under the action of these fields causes disturbances in the electron density and total electron content (TEC) of the ionosphere, which are observed by GPS satellites before strong earthquakes. The typical features of these disturbances (magnitudes, dimensions, stability, nighttime predominance of the relative TEC disturbances, geomagnetic conjugacy) are well reproduced in theoretical model calculations based on the solution of the equation for the electric ionosphere potential with specified seismogenic electric current at the lower boundary of the iono sphere if this current is strong enough (comparable with thunderstorm currents). The feasibility of such seis mogenic currents is discussed. It is argued that the TEC disturbances observed before strong earthquakes can not be explained by neutral atmosphere disturbances. These TEC disturbances can be treated as ionospheric earthquake precursors created by seismogenic GEC disturbances. Keywords: earthquake, global electric circuit, ionosphere, epicenter, seismogenic electric fields and currents, total electron content, tectonic fault, mathematical simulation DOI: 10.1134/S1990793113050229

INTRODUCTION According to well established concepts [126], the global electric circuit (GEC) consists of the highly conducting Earth and ionosphere and the poorly con ducting (but still conducting due to ionization by cos mic rays and radioactive gases) air space between them (atmosphere), through which weak electric currents flows, connecting the circuit sections with high conduc tivity. These currents are directed upwards in areas of thunderstorm activity, from the Earth to the thunder clouds and further to the ionosphere, and downwards, from the ionosphere to the Earth in other places, so called fair weather currents (figure). Thunderstorm cur rents charge the ionosphere positively relative to the Earth and create a potential difference between the Earth and the ionosphere of about (250 50) kV. The total cur rent in the circuit is about 1 kA. The density of fair weather currents is usually ~23 pA/m2. The density of thunderstorm currents is higher (101000 pA/m2) as many times as the area of thunderstorm activity areas is smaller than that of fair weather, varying sub

stantially from place to place (depending on the orog raphy, such currents are more intense over moun tains). Magnetospheric currents represent the outer section of the GEC, coupled with the ionosphere by means of so called field aligned (along the geomag netic field) currents, with a density of the order of frac tions A/m2, which create an ionospheric electric field across the polar caps with a potential difference of 30150 kV between their morning and evening edges. The aforementioned GEC currents are considered to be reliably detected. Besides these, there are ideas about so called hypothetical seismogenic electric fields and currents associated with earthquakes and processes of their preparation, which give rise to various effects in the Earths ionosphere. It is these currents and their ionospheric effects with emphasis on the effects that manifest themselves before, not after or during earth quakes, will be discussed in the present article. Also to be considered is whether there are GEC disturbances prior to an earthquake, which could be interpreted as earthquake precursors of and used for prognosis.

589

590

NAMGALADZE

Ionosphere high conductivity j 10100 p/m2 Atmosphere low conductivity j 23 p/m2

IONOSPHERIC PRECURSORS TO EARTHQUAKES: THE PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION AND MATHEMATICAL MODELING The literature discusses two main mechanisms of seismic ionospheric coupling: hydrodynamic and electromagnetic. The first involves the transmission of seismic effects into the ionosphere through hydrody namic disturbances of the neutral atmosphere, more specifically, internal gravity waves. The second mecha nism considers an electromagnetic seismic ionospheric coupling by means of so called hypothetical seis mogenic electric fields and currents associated with earthquakes and the processes of their preparation. The first mechanism is obviously unsuitable to explain the above properties of the ionospheric TEC disturbances before strong earthquakes, since neutral atmosphere disturbances cannot be localized (locked) near the epicenter. They will propagate from the source with known characteristics of travel ing ionospheric disturbances caused by large scale internal gravity waves. The horizontal velocity of such perturbations is ~700 m/s, whereas the oscillation periods range of from ~30 min to ~3 h [41]. These fea tures are absent in stable large scale ionospheric TEC disturbances observed before strong earthquakes, which are localized near the epicenter and often near the magnetically conjugated region. The electromagnetic mechanism presumes that seismogenic origin electric fields influence the iono sphere. The author of the present paper elaborated on this influence [42], by explaining it by the transporta tion of a magnetized ionospheric plasma in the F2 region by the electromagnetic [] drift in crossed electric () and magnetic () fields. The upward verti cal component of the drift, created by the zonal elec tric field directed to the east, transfers plasma to alti tudes with a low concentration of N2 and 2 mole cules, a factor that slows down the loss of + ions (dominant in the F2 region) in the ionmolecule reactions with N2 and 2 molecules and leads to an increase in the electron density and TEC relative to the undisturbed state. The downward drift of plasma caused by the electric field directed to the west, on the contrary, transfers (lowers) plasma into a region with a high content of molecules and with high losses of + ions, which leads to a decrease in the electron concen tration and TEC relative their values in the undisturbed state. The meridional and zonal (along the parallel) components of the drift redistribute the electron density perturbation and TEC produced by vertical drift along horizontal directions. The model calculations performed in [4349] have shown that the formation of the observed perturba tions of TEC through this mechanism requires electric fields in the ionosphere of the order of a few mV/m. However, it is necessary to understand how these fields
Vol. 7 No. 5 2013

Thunderstorms

Fair weather regions

j 1000 p/m2 Ground high conductivity

Scheme of the global electric circuit.

IONOSPHERIC PRECURSORS TO EARTHQUAKES: OBSERVATIONS The search for earthquake precursors in iono spheric and magnetic data has been going on for a long time in different frequency bands, with positive results, although the forecast of earthquakes remains out of reach. In recent years, thanks to the development of global navigation satellites (GPS, GLONASS), earthquake precursors are commonly sought for using data on the total electron content (TEC) of the ionosphere obtained with a much higher spatial and temporal resolution than conventional ion probe data. An analysis of works on earthquake precursors in the TEC [2740] makes it possible to formulate the following set of their manifestations: (1) relative (defined as percentages with respect to the undisturbed background values) TEC disturbances (increase (more often) or decrease) are as high as sev eral tens of percent; (2) cover an area of about ~1000 3000 km (lati tude longitude); (3) persist for 410 h or longer; (4) maintain their shape (isolines in maps) and do not move during the time of existence; (5) are attached to the epicenter region and often to regions magnetically conjugated with it, but are not strictly identical to them (occur nearby); (6) exist mainly during nighttime, being weakened, until complete disappearance upon arrival of the morning terminator, and renewed with the arrival of the evening terminator; (7) change the shape of the F2 region anomaly in the equatorial ionosphere.

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B

EARTHQUAKES AND GLOBAL ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT

591

are generated and how the mechanisms of their gener ation are related to seismic activity. It is clear that the primary source of these fields must be some kind of processes near tectonic faults involving the generation of electric charges, i.e., the ionization of neutral atoms and molecules. Further, these charges must be delivered to the ionosphere, where they would create a so called seismogenic elec tric field. In the literature, two possible sources of air ioniza tion near the tectonic faults are considered: by (1) radiation from radioactive elements, primarily radon emitted from the faults [5055] and (2) the electric field produced by the accumulation of so called positive holes near the boundaries of faults, which are created by the compression of rocks during the collision of tectonic plates [5662]. Electrons arising during ionization (free and attached to heavy species) and positive ions can move differently in the vertical direction, depending on the balance of forces acting on them. These forces are cre ated by the electric fields (background field, directed from the ionosphere to the Earth, and the field of pos itive holes, directed oppositely) and the pressure gra dients that provide turbulent transport of heavy spe cies, such as aerosols, water vapor, etc. The resulting charge transport, an electric current, can generally be directed upwards, into the ionosphere, or downwards, toward the ground, creating in the ionosphere fields of opposite signs (the background electric field and the turbulent transport of negatively charged heavy species produce a downward current, whereas the near ground field of positive holes, an upward current). What should be the strength of the vertical currents flowing between the ionosphere and the Earth that they would be able to create electric fields in the iono sphere of the order of several mV/m, required to pro duce measurable TEC perturbations? The answer to this question is provided by a number of studies [47 49, 6369], in which the equation for the potential of the ionospheric electric field with variable intensity vertical currents at the lower boundary of the iono sphere was solved. The density of these currents must be at least not less, if not greater, than the density of lightning currents, i.e., 110 nA/m2, which is 1000 10000 times higher than the fair weather current den sity. The total current over the faults must not be less than the total current in the GEC, i.e., less than 1 kA. Are there any such current values in reality? According to [7072], yes, there are. However, unlike the situation with the TEC, their relation to seismic activity remains unproved due to the lack of direct measurements of currents, rather than their magnetic ionospheric effects, at specific places and times of earthquake preparation, which, alas, are unknown in advance. Thus, variations of the ionospheric TEC derived from navigation satellites observations with a
RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B

high spatial and temporal resolution, are today the main contender for the position of data capable of providing information on ionospheric precursors of preparing earthquakes. CONCLUSIONS TEC variations observed before strong earthquakes of the ionosphere cannot be explained by anything other than the influence of electric fields. Unlike per turbations of neutral atmosphere, quasistationary electric fields can be attached to their source and the magnetically conjugated region (due to a high con ductivity of geomagnetic field lines). In this case, the equality of the electric fields at both ends of the geo magnetic field line does not mean identity of the effects they create in the electron concentration and TEC because of differences of the background states of the ionosphere and neutral atmosphere in the different hemispheres. This explains the magnetic conjugation of TEC perturbations and their asymmetry with respect to the geomagnetic equator. The ionospheric effects of the electric fields signif icantly weaken during the daytime because of the con ductivity of the illuminated ionosphere is higher than that of the nighttime ionosphere. This explains the predominant occurrence of relative TEC perturba tions in the evening, which disappear in the morning. The structure of seismogenic origin electric fields is such that, just above the source, the field changes its direction (as the field of a point charge), so TEC per turbations should be located not exactly above the source, but nearby, as is observed. The equatorial anomaly of the F2 region is primarily controlled by an electric field, so that its variations before earthquakes are indicate of electric field perturbations. Lastly, seismogenic perturbations of the electron density in the ionosphere give rise to disturbances in the variations of magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation in various bands through perturbations of currents and refraction indices for electromagnetic waves, thereby creating ensembles of earthquake pre cursors of electromagnetic origin. The electric current between the tectonic fault and the ionosphere required for creating such disturbances should be comparable to or even exceed the thunderstorm current, so that the role of seismogenic currents in the global electric cir cuit is no less important than the role of thunderstorm electricity. REFERENCES
1. E. P. Krider and J. A. Musser, J. Geophys. Res. 87 (C13), 11.171 (1982). doi: 10.1029/JC087iC13p11171 2. M. Makino and M. Takeda, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys. 46 (5), 195 (1984). 3. M. Makino and T. Ogawa, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys. 46 (5), 431 (1984).
Vol. 7 No. 5 2013

592

NAMGALADZE 33. I. E. Zakharenkova, O. V. Zolotov, A. A. Namgaladze, I. I. Shagimuratov, and O. V. Martynenko, in Proceed ings of the Conference on Fundamental Space Research (Sunny Beach, Bulgaria, 2008), p. 371. 34. I. E. Zakharenkova, I. I. Shagimuratov, N. Yu. Tepeni tzina, and A. Krankowski, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 70, 1919 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2008.06.003 35. J. Y. Liu, Y. I. Chen, C. H. Chen, et al., J. Geophys. Res. 114, A04320 (2009). doi: 10.1029/2008JA013698 36. Y. Kakinami, J. Y. Liu, L. C. Tsai, and K. Oyama, Int. J. Rem. Sens. 31, 3571 (2010). 37. O. V. Zolotov, B. E. Prokhorov, A. A. Namgaladze, and O. V. Martynenko, Russ. J. Phys. Chem. B 5, 435 (2011). doi: 10.1134/S1990793111030146 38. O. V. Zolotov, A. A. Namgaladze, I. E. Zakharenkova, et al., Geomagn. Aeron. 52, 390 (2012). doi: 10.1134/ S0016793212030152 39. Yu. V. Romanovskaya, A. A. Namgaladze, O. V. Zolo tov, N. A. Starikova, and V. Z. Lopatiy, Proc. MSTU 15, 477 (2012). 40. O. V. Zolotov, A. A. Namgaladze, and B. E. Prokhorov, Proc. MSTU 15, 583 (2012). arXiv: 1205.6118 41. B. E. Brunelli and A. A. Namgaladze, Physics of the Ionosphere (Nauka, Moscow, 1988) [in Russian]. 42. A. A. Namgaladze, in Proceedings of the MNTK on Sci ence and Education 2007 (MGTU, Murmansk, 2007), p. 358. 43. A. A. Namgaladze, M. V. Klimenko, V. V. Klimenko, and I. E. Zakharenkova, in Proceedings of the 4th Inter national Conference on Solar Terrestial Bonds and Earthquake Precursors (Petropavlovsk Kamchatskii, 2007), p. 424. 44. A. A. Namgaladze, M. V. Klimenko, V. V. Klimenko, and I. E. Zakharenkova, Geomagn. Aeron. 49, 252 (2009). doi: 10.1134/S0016793209020169 45. A. A. Namgaladze, O. V. Zolotov, I. E. Zakharenkova, I. I. Shagimuratov, O. V. Martynenko, Proc. MSTU 12, 308 (2009). http://goo.gl/A8cLx 46. J. Y. Liu, H. Le, Y. I. Chen, et al., J. Geophys. Res. 116, A04302 (2011). doi: 10.1029/2010JA015704 47. C. L. Kuo, J. D. Huba, G. Joyce, and L. C. Lee, J. Geo phys. Res. 116, A10317 (2011). 48. M. I. Karpov, O. V. Zolotov, and A. A. Namgaladze, Proc. MSTU 15, 471 (2012). 49. M. I. Karpov, A. A. Namgaladze, and O. V. Zolotov, Proc. MSTU 15, 595 (2012). 50. C. Y. King, J. Geophys. Res. 91 (B12), 12269 (1986). 51. H. S. Virk and B. Singh, Geophys. Rev. Lett. 21, 737 (1994). 52. J. Heincke, U. Koch, and G. Martinelli, Geophys. Rev. Lett. 22, 774 (1995). 53. V. M. Sorokin and A. K. Yaschenko, Adv. Space Res. 26, 1219 (2000). 54. V. M. Sorokin, V. M. Chmyrev, and A. K. Yaschenko, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 63, 1681 (2001). 55. Y. Omori, H. Nagahama, Y. Kawada, et al., Phys. Chem. Earth 34, 435 (2009). 56. F. Freund, J. Geophys. Res. 105 (B5), 11001 (2000). 57. F. Freund, J. Geodynamics 33, 543 (2002).
Vol. 7 No. 5 2013

4. B. K. Sapkota and N. C. Varshneya, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys. 52 (19), 1 (1990). 5. R. G. Roble, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys. 53 (19), 831 (1991). 6. W. Kundt and G. Thuma, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 61, 955 (1999). 7. M. J. Rycroft, S. Israelsson, and C. Price, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 62, 1563 (2000). 8. M. D. Kartalev, M. J. Rycroft, and V. O. Papitashvili, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 66, 1233 (2004). 9. M. Fullekrug, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 66, 1233 (2004). 10. R. G. Harrison, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 66, 1127 (2004). 11. R. G. Harrison, Atmos. Res. 70, 1 (2004). 12. R. G. Harrison and W. J. Ingram, Atmos. Res. 76, 49 (2005). 13. R. H. Holzworth, E. A. Bering, M. F. Kokorowski, et al., Adv. Space Res. 36, 2223 (2005). 14. M. J. Rycroft, M. D. Kartalev, V. O. Papitashvili, and V. I. Keremidarska, Adv. Space Res. 35, 1450 (2005). 15. M. J. Rycroft, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 68, 445 (2006). 16. D. Singh, V. Gopalakrishnan, R. P. Singh, et al., Atmos. Res. 84, 91 (2007). 17. M. J. Rycroft, A. Odzimek, N. F. Arnold, et al., J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 69, 2485 (2007). 18. P. T. Tonev and P. I. Y. Velinov, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 69, 2510 (2007). 19. D. R. Kniveton, B. A. Tinsley, G. B. Burns, E. A. Bering, and O. A. Troshichev, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 70, 2033 (2008). 20. M. J. Rycroft, R. G. Harrison, K. A. Nicoll, and E. A. Mareev, Space Sci. Rev. 137, 83 (2008). 21. R. G. Harrison and K. A. Nicoll, Atmos. Res. 89, 181 (2008). 22. E. A. Mareev and S. V. Anisimov, Atmos. Res. 91, 161 (2009). 23. K. A. Nicoll and R. G. Harrison, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 71, 1824 (2009). 24. E. R. Williams, Atmos. Res. 91, 140 (2009). 25. S. S. Davydenko, T. C. Marshall, and M. Stolzenburg, Atmos. Res. 91, 165 (2009). 26. J. N. Thomas, R. H. Holzworth, and M. P. McCarthy, Atmos. Res. 91, 153 (2009). 27. J. Y. Liu, Y. I. Chen, S. A. Pulinets, Y. B. Tsai, and Y. J. Chuo, Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 3113 (2000). doi: 10.1029/2000GL011395 28. J. Y. Liu, Y. I. Chen, Y. J. Chuo, and H. F. Tsai, Geo phys. Res. Lett. 28, 1383 (2001). 29. J. Y. Liu, Y. J. Chuo, S. J. Shan, et al., Ann. Geophys. 22, 1585 (2004). 30. S. A. Pulinets and K. Boyarchuk, in Ionospheric Precur sors of Earthquakes (Springer, Berlin, 2004), p. 315. 31. J. Y. Liu, Y. B. Tsai, S. W. Chen, et al., Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L02103 (2006). doi: 10.1029/2005GL023963 32. J. Y. Liu, Y. I. Chen, Y. J. Chuo, and C. S. Chen, J. Geophys. Res. 111, A05304 (2006). doi: 10.1029/ 2005JA011333

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B

EARTHQUAKES AND GLOBAL ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT 58. F. T. Freund, A. Takeuchi, and B. W. S. Lau, Phys. Chem. Earth 31, 389 (2006). 59. F. St Laurent, J. S. Derr, and F. T. Freund, Phys. Chem. Earth 31, 305 (2006). 60. Akihiro Takeuchi, B. W. S. Lau, and F. T. Freund, Phys. Chem. Earth 31, 240 (2006). 61. F. Freund, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 71, 1824 (2009). 62. F. Freund, J. Asian Earth Sci. 41, 383 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2010.03.009 63. V. M. Sorokin, V. M. Chmyrev, A. K. Yaschenko, et al., J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 67, 1259 (2005). 64. V. M. Sorokin, A. K. Yaschenko, V. M. Chmyrev, and M. Hayakawa, Nat. Haz. Earth Syst. Sci. 5, 661 (2005). 65. V. M. Sorokin, A. K. Yaschenko, and M. Hayakawa, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 68, 1260 (2006).

593

66. V. M. Sorokin, V. M. Chmyrev, and A. K. Yaschenko, Adv. Space Res. 37, 666 (2006). 67. V. M. Sorokin, A. K. Yaschenko, V. M. Chmyrev, and M. Hayakawa, Phys. Chem. Earth 31, 454 (2006). 68. V. M. Sorokin, A. K. Yaschenko, V. M. Chmyrev, and M. Hayakawa, Phys. Chem. Earth 31, 447 (2006). 69. V. M. Sorokin, A. K. Yaschenko, and M. Hayakawa, Nat. Haz. Earth Syst. Sci. 7, 155 (2007). 70. E. P. Kreider and J. A. Musser, J. Geophys. Res. 87 (C13), 11171 (1982). 71. R. J. Blakeslee, H. J. Christian, and B. Vonnegut, J. Geophys. Res. 94 (D11), 13135 (1989). 72. J. L. Le Mouel, D. Gibert, and J. P. Poirier, C. R. Geosci. 342 (2), 95 (2010).

Translated by V. Smirnov

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B

Vol. 7

No. 5

2013