Engineering topics

Moon, Y.-J.

Publications and source records attributed to Moon, Y.-J..

3 records

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 NTRS2008

Comparison of SOHO/UVCS and MLSO MK4 Coronameter Densities

This paper compares the density distributions of the solar corona obtained by UVCS and the Mauna MLSO MK4 coronameter. This is the first attempt to compare the coronal densities estimated by the two instruments. Two UVCS emission lines (O VI 1032 hand 1037.6 A), which have both radiative and collisional components, were used. The coronal number density is determined from the ratio of these two components. The coronal density can be determined by inverting MLSO MK4 polarization maps. It was found that the mean electron number density in a helmet streamer observed by MK4 on 2003 April 28 is fairly consistent with that observed by UVCS. For a coronal hole and an active region observed on 1999 October 19 and 24, the MK4 coronal densities are close to those from the UVCS. The results demonstrate that MK4 polarization data can provide a coronal density distribution in a large field of view with a time cadence of about three minutes.

Lee, K.-S.↗