Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “GEOMAGNETISM”

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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2008

On the Relationship between Solar Wind Speed, Earthward-Directed Coronal Mass Ejections, Geomagnetic Activity, and the Sunspot Cycle Using 12-Month Moving Averages

For 1996 .2006 (cycle 23), 12-month moving averages of the aa geomagnetic index strongly correlate (r = 0.92) with 12-month moving averages of solar wind speed, and 12-month moving averages of the number of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) (halo and partial halo events) strongly correlate (r = 0.87) with 12-month moving averages of sunspot number. In particular, the minimum (15.8, September/October 1997) and maximum (38.0, August 2003) values of the aa geomagnetic index occur simultaneously with the minimum (376 km/s) and maximum (547 km/s) solar wind speeds, both being strongly correlated with the following recurrent component (due to high-speed streams). The large peak of aa geomagnetic activity in cycle 23, the largest on record, spans the interval late 2002 to mid 2004 and is associated with a decreased number of halo and partial halo CMEs, whereas the smaller secondary peak of early 2005 seems to be associated with a slight rebound in the number of halo and partial halo CMEs. Based on the observed aaM during the declining portion of cycle 23, RM for cycle 24 is predicted to be larger than average, being about 168+/-60 (the 90% prediction interval), whereas based on the expected aam for cycle 24 (greater than or equal to 14.6), RM for cycle 24 should measure greater than or equal to 118+/-30, yielding an overlap of about 128+/-20.

Wilson, Robert M.↗
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 NTRS2009

Predicting the Size of Sunspot Cycle 24 on the Basis of Single- and Bi-Variate Geomagnetic Precursor Methods

Examined are single- and bi-variate geomagnetic precursors for predicting the maximum amplitude (RM) of a sunspot cycle several years in advance. The best single-variate fit is one based on the average of the ap index 36 mo prior to cycle minimum occurrence (E(Rm)), having a coefficient of correlation (r) equal to 0.97 and a standard error of estimate (se) equal to 9.3. Presuming cycle 24 not to be a statistical outlier and its minimum in March 2008, the fit suggests cycle 24 s RM to be about 69 +/- 20 (the 90% prediction interval). The weighted mean prediction of 11 statistically important single-variate fits is 116 +/- 34. The best bi-variate fit is one based on the maximum and minimum values of the 12-mma of the ap index; i.e., APM# and APm*, where # means the value post-E(RM) for the preceding cycle and * means the value in the vicinity of cycle minimum, having r = 0.98 and se = 8.2. It predicts cycle 24 s RM to be about 92 +/- 27. The weighted mean prediction of 22 statistically important bi-variate fits is 112 32. Thus, cycle 24's RM is expected to lie somewhere within the range of about 82 to 144. Also examined are the late-cycle 23 behaviors of geomagnetic indices and solar wind velocity in comparison to the mean behaviors of cycles 2023 and the geomagnetic indices of cycle 14 (RM = 64.2), the weakest sunspot cycle of the modern era.

Wilson, Robert M.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Geomagnetic Secular Variation Prediction with Thermal Heterogeneous Boundary Conditions

It has long been conjectured that thermal heterogeneity at the core-mantle boundary (CMB) affects the geodynamo substantially. The observed two pairs of steady and strong magnetic flux lobes near the Polar Regions and the low secular variation in the Pacific over the past 400 years (and perhaps longer) are likely the consequences of this CMB thermal heterogeneity. There are several studies on the impact of the thermal heterogeneity with numerical geodynamo simulations. However, direct correlation between the numerical results and the observations is found very difficult, except qualitative comparisons of certain features in the radial component of the magnetic field at the CMB. This makes it difficult to assess accurately the impact of thermal heterogeneity on the geodynamo and the geomagnetic secular variation. We revisit this problem with our MoSST_DAS system in which geomagnetic data are assimilated with our geodynamo model to predict geomagnetic secular variations. In this study, we implement a heterogeneous heat flux across the CMB that is chosen based on the seismic tomography of the lowermost mantle. The amplitude of the heat flux (relative to the mean heat flux across the CMB) varies in the simulation. With these assimilation studies, we will examine the influences of the heterogeneity on the forecast accuracies, e.g. the accuracies as functions of the heterogeneity amplitude. With these, we could be able to assess the model errors to the true core state, and thus the thermal heterogeneity in geodynamo modeling.

Kuang, Weijia↗
NASA NTRS1961

Solar Influences on Geomagnetic and Related Phenomena

A discussion of the geomagnetic effects of streams of electromagnetic and particular radiation from the sun. The interplay of forces between the geomagnetic field and solar streams is outlined; and the theoretical relationship between these, the solar storms, the trapped Van Allen radiations, the polar aurora, and geomagnetic field distortion are presented.

Vestine, E. H.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Impact of Archeomagnetic Field Model Data on Modern Era Geomagnetic Forecasts

A series of geomagnetic data assimilation experiments have been carried out to demonstrate the impact of assimilating archeomagnetic data via the CALS3k.4 geomagnetic field model from the period between 10 and 1590 CE. The assimilation continues with the gufm1 model from 1590 to 1990 and CM4 model from 1990 to 2000 as observations, and comparisons between these models and the geomagnetic forecasts are used to determine an optimal maximum degree for the archeomagnetic observations, and to independently estimate errors for these observations. These are compared with an assimilation experiment that uses the uncertainties provided with CALS3k.4. Optimal 20 year forecasts in 1990 are found when the Gauss coefficients up to degree 3 are assimilated. In addition we demonstrate how a forecast and observation bias correction scheme could be used to reduce bias in modern era forecasts. Initial experiments show that this approach can reduce modern era forecast biases by as much as 50 percent.

Tangborn, Andrew↗
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.↗
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 NTRS2021

Geomagnetic Secular Variation Forecast using the NASA GEMS Ensemble Kalman filter: A Candidate SV Model for IGRF‑13

We have produced a 5-year mean secular variation (SV ) of the geomagnetic field for the period 2020–2025. We use the NASA Geomagnetic Ensemble Modeling System (GEMS), which consists of the NASA Goddard geodynamo model and ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) with 400 ensemble members. Geomagnetic field models are used as observations for the assimilation, including gufm1 (1590–1960), CM4 (1961–2000) and CM6 (2001–2019). The forecast involves a bias correction scheme that assumes that the model bias changes on timescales much longer than the forecast period, so that they can be removed by successive forecast series. The algorithm was validated on the time period 2010-2015 by comparing with CM6 before being applied to the 2020–2025 time period. This forecast has been sub-mitted as a candidate predictive model of IGRF-13 for the period 2020–2025.

Andrew Tangborn↗
NASA NTRS2021

A Testbed for Geomagnetic Data Assimilation

Geomagnetic data assimilation merges past and present-day observations of the Earth’s mag-netic field with numerical geodynamo models and the results are used to initialize forecasts.We present a new ‘proxy model’ that can be used to test, or rapidly prototype, numerical tech-niques for geomagnetic data assimilation. The basic idea for constructing a proxy is to capturethe conceptual difficulties one encounters when assimilating observations into high-resolution,3-D geodynamo simulations, but at a much lower computational cost. The framework of usingproxy models as ‘gate-keepers’ for numerical methods that could/should be considered formore extensive testing on operational models has proven useful in numerical weather predic-tion, where advances in data assimilation and, hence, improved forecast skill, are at least inpart enabled by the common use of a wide range of proxy models. We also present a largeset of systematic data assimilation experiments with the proxy to reveal the importance oflocalization and inflation in geomagnetic data assimilation.

K Gwirtz↗
NASA NTRS2023

Occurrence of Large Geomagnetically Induced Currents Within the EPRI SUNBURST Monitoring Network

Space weather, a natural hazard, can adversely impact human technological assets. High-voltage electric power transmission grids constitute one of the most critical technological systems vulnerable to space weather driven geomagnetically induced currents (GICs). One of the major challenges pertaining to the study of GICs over the continental United States has been the availability of GIC measurements, which are critical for validation of geoelectric field and power flow models, for example. In this study, we analyze GIC measurements collected at 17 Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) SUNBURST transformer locations across the United States for which a GIC value of 10 A or greater was recorded. This data set includes 52 individual geomagnetic storms with Kp index 6 and above during the period from 2010 to 2021. The analysis confirms that there is a good correlation between the number of geomagnetic storms per year and the number of recorded GIC events. Our results also show that about 76% of the top 17 GIC events are associated with the storm main phase, while only 24% are attributed to storm sudden commencements. In addition, it is shown, for the first time, that mid-latitude positive bays can cause large GICs over the continental United States. Finally, this study shows that the largest measured GIC event in the data set was associated with a localized intense dB/dt structure, which could be attributed to substorm activity.

Chigomezyo M. Ngwira↗
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 NTRS1996

Coronal Hole-Active Region-Current Sheet (CHARCS) Association with Intense Interplanetary and Geomagnetic Activity

Intense geomagnetic storms (Dst<or equal to -100nT) have been associated with interplanetary structures involving large-intensity (B(sub 3)<or equal to 10nT) and long-duration (T< or equal to 3 hours) values of the southward component of the IMF. We show that near solar maximum, the solar origin of such structures seems to be associated with active regions(flares and/or filament eruptions) ocurring close to the streamer belt and to growing low altitude coronal holes. It is also shown that such type of coronal holes had a dual-peak solar cycle distribution during solar cycle 21, similar to that previously reported for the above mentioned interplanetary and geomagnetic phenomena.

geomagnetic storms IMF solar maximum flares filame↗
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 NTRS2014

Predicting Solar Cycle 24 Using a Geomagnetic Precursor Pair

We describe using Ap and F(10.7) as a geomagnetic-precursor pair to predict the amplitude of Solar Cycle 24. The precursor is created by using F(10.7) to remove the direct solar-activity component of Ap. Four peaks are seen in the precursor function during the decline of Solar Cycle 23. A recurrence index that is generated by a local correlation of Ap is then used to determine which peak is the correct precursor. The earliest peak is the most prominent but coincides with high levels of non-recurrent solar activity associated with the intense solar activity of October and November 2003. The second and third peaks coincide with some recurrent activity on the Sun and show that a weak cycle precursor closely following a period of strong solar activity may be difficult to resolve. A fourth peak, which appears in early 2008 and has recurrent activity similar to precursors of earlier solar cycles, appears to be the "true" precursor peak for Solar Cycle 24 and predicts the smallest amplitude for Solar Cycle 24. To determine the timing of peak activity it is noted that the average time between the precursor peak and the following maximum is approximately equal to 6.4 years. Hence, Solar Cycle 24 would peak during 2014. Several effects contribute to the smaller prediction when compared with other geomagnetic-precursor predictions. During Solar Cycle 23 the correlation between sunspot number and F(10.7) shows that F(10.7) is higher than the equivalent sunspot number over most of the cycle, implying that the sunspot number underestimates the solar-activity component described by F(10.7). During 2003 the correlation between aa and Ap shows that aa is 10 % higher than the value predicted from Ap, leading to an overestimate of the aa precursor for that year. However, the most important difference is the lack of recurrent activity in the first three peaks and the presence of significant recurrent activity in the fourth. While the prediction is for an amplitude of Solar Cycle 24 of 65 +/- 20 in smoothed sunspot number, a below-average amplitude for Solar Cycle 24, with maximum at 2014.5+/-0.5, we conclude that Solar Cycle 24 will be no stronger than average and could be much weaker than average.

predictions↗
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↗