Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “GEOMAGNETIC STORM”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

Two-Step Forecast of Geomagnetic Storm Using Coronal Mass Ejection and Solar Wind Condition

To forecast geomagnetic storms, we had examined initially observed parameters of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and introduced an empirical storm forecast model in a previous study. Now we suggest a two-step forecast considering not only CME parameters observed in the solar vicinity but also solar wind conditions near Earth to improve the forecast capability. We consider the empirical solar wind criteria derived in this study (Bz ≤ −5 nT or Ey ≥ 3 mV/m for t ≥ 2 h for moderate storms with minimum Dst less than −50 nT) (i.e. Magnetic Field Magnitude, B (sub z) less than or equal to -5 nanoTeslas or duskward Electrical Field, E (sub y) greater than or equal to 3 millivolts per meter for time greater than or equal to 2 hours for moderate storms with Minimum Disturbance Storm Time, Dst less than -50 nanoTeslas) and a Dst model developed by Temerin and Li (2002, 2006) (TL [i.e. Temerin Li] model). Using 55 CME-Dst pairs during 1997 to 2003, our solar wind criteria produce slightly better forecasts for 31 storm events (90 percent) than the forecasts based on the TL model (87 percent). However, the latter produces better forecasts for 24 nonstorm events (88 percent), while the former correctly forecasts only 71 percent of them. We then performed the two-step forecast. The results are as follows: (i) for 15 events that are incorrectly forecasted using CME parameters, 12 cases (80 percent) can be properly predicted based on solar wind conditions; (ii) if we forecast a storm when both CME and solar wind conditions are satisfied (∩, i.e. cap operator - the intersection set that is comprised of all the elements that are common to both), the critical success index becomes higher than that from the forecast using CME parameters alone, however, only 25 storm events (81 percent) are correctly forecasted; and (iii) if we forecast a storm when either set of these conditions is satisfied (∪, i.e. cup operator - the union set that is comprised of all the elements of either or both), all geomagnetic storms are correctly forecasted.

geomagnetic storm forecast↗
NASA NTRS2012

Comparison of Dst Forecast Models for Intense Geomagnetic Storms

We have compared six disturbance storm time (Dst) forecast models using 63 intense geomagnetic storms (Dst <=100 nT) that occurred from 1998 to 2006. For comparison, we estimated linear correlation coefficients and RMS errors between the observed Dst data and the predicted Dst during the geomagnetic storm period as well as the difference of the value of minimum Dst (Delta Dst(sub min)) and the difference in the absolute value of Dst minimum time (Delta t(sub Dst)) between the observed and the predicted. As a result, we found that the model by Temerin and Li gives the best prediction for all parameters when all 63 events are considered. The model gives the average values: the linear correlation coefficient of 0.94, the RMS error of 14.8 nT, the Delta Dst(sub min) of 7.7 nT, and the absolute value of Delta t(sub Dst) of 1.5 hour. For further comparison, we classified the storm events into two groups according to the magnitude of Dst. We found that the model of Temerin and Lee is better than the other models for the events having 100 <= Dst < 200 nT, and three recent models (the model of Wang et al., the model of Temerin and Li, and the model of Boynton et al.) are better than the other three models for the events having Dst <= 200 nT.

Geomagnetic Storms↗
NASA NTRS1994

Do Coronal Holes Cause 27 Day Recurring Geomagnetic Storms?

We examine 3 years of interplanetary data and geomagnetic activity indices (1973-1975) to determine the causes of geomagnetic storms and substorms during the descending phase of the solar cycle. In this paper, we specifically studied the year 1974 where two long lasting coronating streams existed.

geomagnetic storms geomagnetic activity interplane↗
NASA NTRS1992

Thermospheric heating away from the auroral oval during geomagnetic storms

The data on the morphology of the changes in the heating of thermosphere in the middle and high latitudes during geomagnetic storms, collected by the DE-2 satellite between July 1981 and February 1983 are compared with the NCAR-Thermosphere-Ionosphere General Circulation Model simulation of the November 24, 1982 storm on a one-on-one basis for an individual orbit in the middle of this storm. Good agreement was found for the winter hemisphere. A thermodynamic diagnostic processor was then used to investigate the mechanism by which geomagnetic storms cause temperature increases at lower latitudes. It was found that the pattern of heating during geomagnetic storms is complex, indicative of the complex nature of the physical processes that alter the thermal structure of the thermosphere at these times. Model predictions indicated that the greatest temperature increase at 40 deg N occurs in the morning, in agreement with results of Proelss (1984).

Burns, A. G.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Compound streams, magnetic clouds, and major geomagnetic storms

Data from ISEE 3, Helios A, and Helios B were used to identify the components of two compound streams and to determine their configurations. In one case, ejecta containing a magnetic cloud associated with a disappearing quiescent filament were interacting with a corotating stream. In the second case, ejecta containing a magnetic cloud associated with a 2B flare were overtaking ejecta from a different source. Each of these compound streams produced an unusually large geomagnetic storm, on April 3, 1979, and on April 25, 1979, respectively. The largest geomagnetic storm in the period 1968-1986, which occurred on July 13, 1982, was associated with a compound stream. Thirty geomagnetic storms with A(p) greater than 90 occurred between 1972 and 1983, and there are interplanetary magnetic field and plasma data for 17 of these events. The data suggest that most large geomagnetic storms are associated with compound streams and/or magnetic clouds.

Burlaga, L. F.↗
NASA NTRS1972

The responses of the thermosphere due to a geomagnetic storm: A MHD model

A magnetohydrodynamics theory was used to study the dynamic response of the neutral atmosphere to a geomagnetic storm. A full set of magnetohydrodynamic equations appropriate for the present problem is derived and their various orders of approximation are discussed in some detail. In order to demonstrate the usefulness of this theoretical model, the May 1967 geomagnetic storm data were used in the resulting set of nonlinear, time dependent, partial differential magnetohydrodynamic equations to calculate variations of the thermosphere due to the storm. The numerical results are presented for wind speeds, electric field strength, and amount of joule heating at a constant altitude for the data recorded. Data show that the strongest thermospheric responses are at the polar region becoming weaker in the equatorial region. This may lead to the speculation that a thermospheric wave is generated in the polar region due to the geomagnetic storm which propagates towards the equator.

Wu, S. T.↗
NASA NTRS1993

The Effects of Neutral Inertia on Ionospheric Currents in the High-Latitude Thermosphere Following a Geomagnetic Storm

Results of an experimental and theoretical investigation into the effects of the time dependent neutral wind flywheel on high-latitude ionospheric electrodynamics are presented. The results extend our previous work which used the National Center for Atmospheric Research Thermosphere/Ionosphere General Circulation Model (NCAR TIGCM) to theoretically simulate flywheel effects in the aftermath of a geomagnetic storm. The previous results indicated that the neutral circulation, set up by ion-neutral momentum coupling in the main phase of a geomagnetic storm, is maintained for several hours after the main phase has ended and may dominate height-integrated Hall currents and field-aligned currents for up to 4-5 hours. We extend the work of Deng et al. to include comparisons between the calculated time-dependent ionospheric Hall current system in the storm-time recovery period and that measured by instruments on board the Dynamics Explorer 2 (DE 2) satellite. Also, comparisons are made between calculated field-aligned currents and those derived from DE 2 magnetometer measurements. These calculations also allow us to calculate the power transfer rate (sometimes called the Poynting flux) between the magnetosphere and ionosphere. The following conclusions have been drawn: (1) Neutral winds can contribute significantly to the horizontal ionospheric current system in the period immediately following the main phase of a geomagnetic storm, especially over the magnetic polar cap and in regions of ion drift shear. (2) Neutral winds drive Hall currents that flow in the opposite direction to those driven by ion drifts. (3) The overall morphology of the calculated field-aligned current system agrees with previously published observations for the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) B(sub Z) southward conditions, although the region I and region 2 currents are smeared by the TI(ICM model grid resolution. (4) Neutral winds can make significant contributions to the field-aligned current system when B(sub Z) northward conditions prevail following the main phase of a storm, but can account for only a fraction of the observed currents. (5) DE 2 measurements provide a demonstration of "local" (satellite-altitude) flywheel effects. (6) On the assumption that the magnetosphere acts as an insulator, we calculate neutral-wind-induced polarization electric fields of approx. 20-30 kV in the period immediately following the geomagnetic storm.

Deng, W.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Determining the Mode, Frequency, and Azimuthal Wave Number of ULF Waves During a HSS and Moderate Geomagnetic Storm

Ultralow frequency (ULF) waves play a fundamental role in the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere and outer radiation belt during geomagnetic storms. Broadband ULF wave power can transport energetic electrons via radial diffusion, and discrete ULF wave power can energize electrons through a resonant interaction. Using observations from the Magnetospheric Multiscale mission, we characterize the evolution of ULF waves during a highspeed solar wind stream (HSS) and moderate geomagnetic storm while there is an enhancement of the outer radiation belt. The Automated Flare Inference of Oscillations code is used to distinguish discrete ULF wave power from broadband wave power during the HSS. During periods of discrete wave power and utilizing the close separation of the Magnetospheric Multiscale spacecraft, we estimate the toroidal mode ULF azimuthal wave number throughout the geomagnetic storm. We concentrate on the toroidal mode as the HSS compresses the dayside magnetosphere resulting in an asymmetric magnetic field topology where toroidal mode waves can interact with energetic electrons. Analysis of the mode structure and wave numbers demonstrates that the generation of the observed ULF waves is a combination of externally driven waves, via the KelvinHelmholtz instability, and internally driven waves, via unstable ion distributions. Further analysis of the periods and toroidal azimuthal wave numbers suggests that these waves can couple with the core electron radiation belt population via the drift resonance during the storm. The azimuthal wave number and structure of ULF wave power (broadband or discrete) have important implications for the inner magnetospheric and radiation belt dynamics.

Murphy, Kyle R.↗