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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2007

Solar and Interplanetary Sources of Major Geomagnetic Storms (Dst less than or equal to -100 nT) During 1996 - 2005

We present the results of an investigation of the sequence of events from the Sun to the Earth that ultimately led to the 88 major geomagnetic storms (defined by minimum Dst less than or equal to -100 nT) that occurred during 1996 - 2005. The results are achieved through cooperative efforts that originated at the Living with a Star (LWS) Coordinated Data- Analysis Workshop (CDAW) held at George Mason University in March 2005. Based on careful examination of the complete array of solar and in-situ solar wind observations, we have identified and characterized, for each major geomagnetic storm, the overall solar-interplanetary (solar-IP) source type, the time, velocity and angular width of the source coronal mass ejection (CME), the type and heliographic location of the solar source region, the structure of the transient solar wind flow with the storm-driving component specified, the arrival time of shock/disturbance, and the start and ending times of the corresponding IP CME (ICME). The storm-driving component, which possesses a prolonged and enhanced southward magnetic field (B(sub s)) may be an ICME, the sheath of shocked plasma (SH) upstream of an ICME, a corotating interaction region (CIR), or a combination of these structures. We classify the Solar-IP sources into three broad types: (1) S-type, in which the storm is associated with a single ICME and a single CME at the Sun; (2) M-type, in which the storm is associated with a complex solar wind flow produced by multiple interacting ICMEs arising from multiple halo CMEs launched from the Sun in a short period; (3) C-type, in which the storm is associated with a CIR formed at the leading edge of a high speed stream originating from a solar coronal hole (CH). For the 88 major storms, the S-type, M-type and C-type events number 53 (60%): 24 (27%) and 11 (13%), respectively. For the 85 events for which the surface source regions could be investigated, 54 (63%) of the storms originated in solar active regions, 10 (12%) in quiet Sun regions associated with quiescent filaments or filament channels, and 11 (13%) were associated with coronal holes. Remarkably, 10 (12%) CME-driven events showed no sign of eruptive features on the surface (e.g., no flare, no coronal dimming, and no loop arcade, etc), even though all the available solar observation in a suitable time period were carefully examined. Thus, while it is generally true that a major geomagnetic storm is more likely to be driven by a front-side fast halo CME associated with a major flare, our study indicates a broad distribution of source properties. The implications of the results for space weather forecasting are briefly discussed.

Zhang, J.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Electron Dropout Events and Flux Enhancements Associated With Geomagnetic Storms Observed by PROBA-V/Energetic Particle Telescope From 2013 to 2019

Electron flux variations for E > 500 keV during geomagnetic storms are investigated using the Energetic Particle Telescope (EPT). This detector launched in May 2013 on board the satellite PROBA-V at an altitude of 820 km was designed to provide uncontaminated spectra of electrons, protons, and alpha particles. Electron flux dropout events are observed during the main phase of each storm and even during substorms: a rapid reduction of the electron flux is noted throughout the outer electron radiation belt at all energies above about 0.5 MeV on timescales of a few hours. The electron spectrograms measured by the EPT between 2013 and 2019 show that after each geomagnetic storm, dropout events are followed by a flux enhancement starting first at low L values, and reaching the slot or even the inner belt for the strongest storms. We determine the link between Disturbed Storm Time (Dst) and the minimum value of the L-shell where the dropouts deplete the outer belt, as well as the nonlinear relation between Dst and the minimum L-shell where the flux penetrates in the slot region or even the inner belt during the storms. Dropouts appear at all energies measured by EPT and penetrate down to $\textit{L}$~3.5 for the strongest events. Dropouts are observed at Low Earth Orbit each time Dst has an inverted peak < –40 nT. Flux enhancements appear at lower L only for big storm events with Dst < –50 nT. They penetrate down to an impenetrable barrier with a minimum L-shell related to Dst and to the energy. For E > 1 MeV, this limit is also linked to the plasmapause position.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2008

Irregularities at Sub-Auroral, Middle, and Low Latitudes in the Topside Ionosphere Observed During Geomagnetic Storms with the DEMETER and DMSP Satellites

Detailed observations of the plasma structure and irregularities that characterize the topside ionosphere at sub-auroral, middle, and low-latitudes are presented that were gathered with probes on the DEMETER and DMSP satellites during geomagnetic storms. Data from successive orbits reveal how the density structure and irregularities evolve with changes in the Dst. The observations reveal that precisely during the main phase of severe geomagnetic storms, increased ambient plasma densities and broad regions of irregularities are observed at 700 km, initially at storm commencement near the magnetic equator and then extending to mid- and sub-auroral latitudes within the approximately 8 hour period corresponding to the negative Dst excursions. Furthermore, intense, broadband electric and magnetic field irregularities are often observed at sub-auroral latitudes and are typically associated with the trough region and its poleward plasma density gradient. The observations provide a general framework showing how low, mid, and sub-auroral latitude plasma density structuring and associated irregularities respond to geomagnetic storms.

Pfaff, R.↗
NASA NTRS1971

Geomagnetic storm fields near a synchronous satellite.

An apparent early recovery of the main phase of geomagnetic storms at the distance of the synchronous satellite is examined in terms of changing electric current distributions in the magnetosphere during magnetic storms. It is suggested that a rapid recession of the edge of the plasma sheet (after the advance toward the earth during an early epoch of the main phase) is partly responsible for the early recovery. Relevant plasma sheet variations during geomagnetic storms are found to be in agreement with the inferred variations.

Kawasaki, K.↗
NASA NTRS1993

The Causes of Geomagnetic Storms

This paper reviews the correlation between solar flares and geomagnetic storms ??e plasma link between the Sun and the Earth.

geomagnetic storms solar activity↗
NASA NTRS1998

The Causes of Geomagnetic Storms During Solar Maximum

One of the oldest mysteries in geomagnetism is the linkage between solar and geomagnetic activity. The 11-year cycles of both the numbers of sunspots and Earth geomagnetic storms were first noted by Sabine (1852).

mass ejections plasma link↗
NASA NTRS2019

Thermospheric Heating and Cooling Times During Geomagnetic Storms, Including Extreme Events

We present the first quantitative calculations of thermospheric heating and cooling times for geomagnetic storms of different intensity, including extreme events. We utilize the neutral mass density database of the CHAllenging Mini‐satellite Payload and Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment missions to produce thermospheric global system response to geomagnetic storms caused by coronal mass ejections via superposed epoch analysis during May 2001 to December 2015. Storm events are grouped in five different categories based on the minimum value of the SYM‐H index. We calculate the time from storm onset for the thermosphere to reach maximum intensification (heating time) and the time from onset for the thermosphere to recover (cooling time). We find that heating and cooling times decrease as storm intensity increases and the effect is more pronounced for the cooling times. For extreme storms, the thermospheric heating time is 9.5 hr, while the cooling time is 22 hr.

Zesta, Eftyhia↗
NASA NTRS2010

Large Geomagnetic Storms: Introduction to Special Section

Solar cycle 23 witnessed the accumulation of rich data sets that reveal various aspects of geomagnetic storms in unprecedented detail both at the Sun where the storm causing disturbances originate and in geospace where the effects of the storms are directly felt. During two recent coordinated data analysis workshops (CDAWs) the large geomagnetic storms (Dst < or = -100 nT) of solar cycle 23 were studied in order to understand their solar, interplanetary, and geospace connections. This special section grew out of these CDAWs with additional contributions relevant to these storms. Here I provide a brief summary of the results presented in the special section.

Gopalswamy, N.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Modeling Ionospheric Convection During a Major Geomagnetic Storm on October 22-23, 1981

Following the passage of an interplanetary shock at approximately 0500 UT, a major geomagnetic storm developed on October 22-23, 1981. Numerous auroral substorms occurred during this storm leading to an AE index greater than 1000 nT. We have used the expanding/contracting polar cap (ECPC) model (Moses et al., 1989) and data from the Dynamics Explorer 2 spacecraft to study the ionospheric electric fields for 12 consecutive traversals of the polar regions. The ECPC model can determine the voltage drops across the dayside merging and nightside reconnection gaps. We determined the relationship of the AL index (i.e., the intensity of the westward electrojet) to the nightside reconnection potential drop. An excellent linear correlation was found between the nightside reconnection gap voltage drop and the AL index. These results show that the solar wind strongly drives the magnetosphere-ionosphere system throughout the geomagnetic storm. A substantial level of dayside merging seems to occur throughout the event. Nightside reconnection varies from satellite pass to satellite pass and within the substorm recovery phase. We find that tail reconnection is an important feature of the recovery phase of substorms.

Moses, J. J.↗
NASA NTRS2020

A Framework for Understanding and Quantifying the Loss and Acceleration of Relativistic Electrons in the Outer Radiation Belt During Geomagnetic Storms

We present detailed analysis of the global relativistic electron dynamics as measured by total radiation belt content (RBC) during coronal mass ejection (CME) and corotating interaction region (CIR)-driven geomagnetic storms. Recent work has demonstrated that the response of the outer radiation belt is consistent and repeatable during geomagnetic storms. Here we build on this work to show that radiation belt dynamics can be divided into two sequential phases, which have different solar wind dependencies and which when analyzed separately reveal that the radiation belt responds more predictably than if the overall storm response is analyzed as a whole. In terms of RBC, in every storm we analyzed, a phase dominated by loss is followed by a phase dominated by acceleration. Analysis of the RBC during each of these phases demonstrates that they both respond coherently to solar wind and magnetospheric driving. However, the response is independent of whether the storm response is associated with either a CME or CIR. Our analysis shows that during the initial phase, radiation belt loss is organized by the location of the magnetopause and the strength of Dst and ultralow frequency wave power. During the second phase, radiation belt enhancements are well organized by the amplitude of ultralow frequency waves, the auroral electroject index, and solar wind energy input. Overall, our results demonstrate that storm time dynamics of the RBC is repeatable and well characterized by solar wind and geomagnetic driving, albeit with different dependencies during the two phases of a storm.

Kyle R. Murphy↗
NASA NTRS1994

What is a geomagnetic storm?

After a brief review of magnetospheric and interplanetary phenomena for intervals with enhanced solar wind-magnetosphere interaction, an attempt is made to define a geomagnetic storm as an interval of time when a sufficiently intense and long-lasting interplanetary convection electric field leads, through a substantial energization in the magnetosphere-ionosphere system, to an intensified ring current sufficiently strong to exceed some key threshold of the quantifying storm time Dst index. The associated storm/substorm relationship problem is also reviewed. Although the physics of this relationship does not seem to be fully understood at this time, basic and fairly well established mechanisms of this relationship are presented and discussed. Finally, toward the advancement of geomagnetic storm research, some recommendations are given concerning future improvements in monitoring existing geomagnetic indices as well as the solar wind near Earth.

Gonzalez, W. D.↗
NASA NTRS1989

On the mechanisms responsible for high-latitude thermospheric composition variations during the recovery phase of a geomagnetic storm

The causal mechanisms for the recovery of the perturbed high-latitude thermospheric composition to the unperturbed state in the period following a geomagnetic storm are investigated. Model runs of the NCAR thermosphere/ionosphere GCM (TIGCM) and thermosphere GCM are used to calculate the averaged mass mixing ratio variations and the forcing terms responsible for these variations during the recovery phase of a geomagnetic storm. High latitude compositional recovery is found to occur in the NCAR TIGCM on a time scale of about 12 hr to 1 day. This time scale is in agreement with previously observed time scales for typical poststorm F region electron density recoveries. Neither molecular diffusion nor large-scale horizontal advection is the dominant process in determining the compositional state during the recovery period. Thermospheric compositional recovery at high geomagnetic latitudes is driven primarily by vertical advection.

Burns, A. G.↗