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
DOE OSTI2015

Acceleration and loss of relativistic electrons during small geomagnetic storms

We report that past studies of radiation belt relativistic electrons have favored active storm time periods, while the effects of small geomagnetic storms (Dst >₋50 nT) have not been statistically characterized. In this timely study, given the current weak solar cycle, we identify 342 small storms from 1989 through 2000 and quantify the corresponding change in relativistic electron flux at geosynchronous orbit. Surprisingly, small storms can be equally as effective as large storms at enhancing and depleting fluxes. Slight differences exist, as small storms are 10% less likely to result in flux enhancement and 10% more likely to result in flux depletion than large storms. Nevertheless, it is clear that neither acceleration nor loss mechanisms scale with storm drivers as would be expected. Small geomagnetic storms play a significant role in radiation belt relativistic electron dynamics and provide opportunities to gain new insights into the complex balance of acceleration and loss processes.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1975

Interplanetary field and plasma during initial phase of geomagnetic storms

A study has been conducted of a large number of geomagnetic storms occurring during the period from 1966 to 1970. Questions of data selection are discussed and the large-scale interplanetary magnetic field during the initial phase is examined. Small-scale interplanetary fields during the initial phase are also considered, taking into account important features of small-scale variations in the interplanetary field and plasma for three storms. Details concerning 23 geomagnetic storms and the interplanetary magnetic field are presented in a table. A study of the initial phase of these storms indicates that in most of these events, the solar-ecliptic Z component of the interplanetary magnetic field turns southward when the main phase decrease begins.

Patel, V. L.↗
NASA NTRS1996

Moderate Geomagnetic Storms: Interplanetary Origins and Coupling Functions (ISEE3 Data)

Geomagnetic storms are related to the ring current intensification, which is driven by energy injection primarily during energetic solar wind-magnetosphere coupling due to reconnection at the magnetopause. This work identified the interplanetary origins of moderate geomagnetic storms (-100nT is less or equal to Dst(sub peak) is less than or equal to -50 nT) and analyzed the coupling processes during the storm main phase at solar maximum (1978-1979).

Mendes, Odim, Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1980

A source for the geomagnetic storm main phase ring current

The paper considers a proposed source for the geomagnetic storm main phase ring current. It is shown that the flux increases of trapped ions and electrons observed by Explorer 45 at L below 4 during two large geomagnetic storms can be explained by inward radial displacement of the preexisting trapped particle distribution. The proposed source requires only the acceleration of the previously entrapped particle population by inward displacement under conservation of the first two adiabatic invariants. It is suggested that a significant difference between large geomagnetic storms and typical substorm activity may be the inward convection occurring over a large longitude range during storms, but only over a small longitude range during typical substorms.

Lyons, L. R.↗
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.↗