X
Advance Search
  • Balachandran, R., Chen, L.-J., Wang, S. and Fok, M.-C. (2021). Correlating the interplanetary factors to distinguish extreme and major geomagnetic storms. Earth Planet. Phys., 5(2), 180–186. DOI: 10.26464/epp2021015
    Citation: Balachandran, R., Chen, L.-J., Wang, S. and Fok, M.-C. (2021). Correlating the interplanetary factors to distinguish extreme and major geomagnetic storms. Earth Planet. Phys., 5(2), 180–186. DOI: 10.26464/epp2021015
RESEARCH ARTICLE   |  SPACE PHYSICS: MAGNETOSPHERIC PHYSICS    Open Access    

Correlating the interplanetary factors to distinguish extreme and major geomagnetic storms

  • Corresponding author:

    L.-J. Chen, lijen@mailaps.org

  • Publication History:

    • Issue Online: February 28, 2021
    • First Published online: January 18, 2021
    • Accepted article online: January 18, 2021
    • Article accepted: November 25, 2020
    • Article received: August 03, 2020
    The average time rate of change of Dst during the main phase of storms is strongly correlated with the minimum Dst. The correlation between the solar wind electric field and dDst/dt are positive and nonlinear, especially for the regime of extreme storms. The minimum Dst is positively correlated with the minimum Bz, but extreme storms tend to have more negative Dst than the overall trend.
  • We investigate the correlation between Disturbance Storm Time (Dst) characteristics and solar wind conditions for the main phase of geomagnetic storms, seeking possible factors that distinguish extreme storms (minimum Dst <−250 nT) and major storms (minimum Dst <−100 nT). In our analysis of 170 storms, there is a marked correlation between the average rate of change of Dst during a storm’s main phase (ΔDstt) and the storm’s minimum Dst, indicating a faster ΔDstt as storm intensity increases. Extreme events add a new regime to ΔDstt, the hourly time derivative of Dst (dDst/dt), and sustained periods of large amplitudes for southward interplanetary magnetic field Bz and solar wind convection electric field Ey. We find that Ey is a less efficient driver of dDst/dt for extreme storms compared to major storms, even after incorporating the effects of solar wind pressure and ring current decay. When minimum Dst is correlated with minimum Bz, we observe a similar divergence, with extreme storms tending to have more negative Dst than the trend predicted on the basis of major storms. Our results enable further improvements in existing models for storm predictions, including extreme events, based on interplanetary measurements.

  • The modern definition of the geomagnetic storm is characterized by a prolonged depression in the horizontal component of the Earth’s low-latitude magnetic field (Rostoker et al., 1997). This depression is caused by the ring current encircling the Earth in a westward direction (Kamide et al., 1998; Daglis et al., 1999). The Dst (Disturbance Storm Time) index is used to gauge the intensity of geomagnetic storms by measuring this overall ring current intensity (Iyemori, 1990) at low-latitude observatories.

    The critical importance of the time derivative of Dst is manifested in part in its use for reconstructing global geomagnetic fields. The measurement of symmetric disturbances for the Horizontal geomagnetic field (SYM-H) is a de facto higher resolution Dst (Wanliss and Showalter, 2006) commonly utilized by the geospace modeling community to further the understanding of geomagnetic field dynamics. In Sitnov et al., (2008), the application of SYM-H and its time-related derivative were fundamental within their Nearest-Neighbor (NN) approach to spatially reconstruct the magnetosphere and identify storm phases. More recently, Stephens et al., (2019) built upon the NN approach, using SYM-H and its time derivative with the addition of the Auroral Electrojet Index Amplitude Lower (AL) and the AL time derivative to create 3-D models of magnetospheric stretching and dipolarization processes during substorm disturbances. Given the lengthy history of Dst usage, the focus of this paper is on the Dst metric over SYM-H, which was introduced in 1981, to ensure continuity and consistency across our storm analyses.

    Two interplanetary factors that are widely thought to help drive the occurrence of geomagnetic storms are the solar wind convection electric field Ey and the southward component of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) Bz (e.g., Yokoyama and Kamide, 1997), in the Geocentric Solar Magnetospheric (GSM) coordinate system. A southward Bz component indicates beneficial conditions for the process of magnetic reconnection to occur at the magnetopause, with subsequent storage of energy in the magnetotail. The release of this stored magnetic energy due to magnetotail reconnection results in particle injections that form the ring current around the Earth, which in turn causes the depression in the horizontal component of Earth’s magnetic field (Lakhina and Tsurutani, 2017).

    Many studies have investigated the empirical relationships between Dst and interplanetary factors, by using a basic form:

    $$ \frac{{\rm{d}}}{{\rm{d}}t} Dst^* \left(t\right) = Q \left(t\right)- \frac{{Dst^*}\left(t\right)}{\tau }, $$ (1)

    where Dst* = Dst$ a\sqrt{P}+b $ (a and b are constants) is correcting for solar wind dynamic pressure (P) since this pressure affects the magnetopause location and its associated current. Q represents the driving term, and Dst*/$ \tau $ represents the decay of the ring current primarily due to charge exchange between ions and neutral atoms. Burton et al., (1975) first laid the foundation for this empirical analysis, where Q(t) depends on the solar wind electric field under southward IMF. O’Brien and McPherron (2000) modified the coefficients in the formula for Dst* and redetermined $ \tau $. Wang CB et al., (2003) took into account the effect of the solar wind pressure in Q. In the Temerin and Li (2006) model, Dst depends on both the present and past solar wind conditions. Thanks to these studies, the Dst prediction has been much improved, for example, as demonstrated in Ji et al., (2012) where various Dst models are compared. We expand upon the previously studied regimes by analyzing 7 additional extreme storms to establish a positive and nonlinear correlation between the interplanetary electric field Ey and dDst/dt, showing that Ey is a less efficient driver of dDst/dt for extreme storms.

    The effect of IMF Bz on storms has long been recognized. The strength of a geomagnetic storm and its main phase duration were found to be directly proportional to the strength and duration of the IMF Bz component (Vichare et al., 2005; Alex et al., 2006; Rawat et al., 2007, 2010). Gonzalez and Echer (2005) completed an extensive study with the conclusion that the driving Bz compo- nent at the Lagrange L1 location tends to reach its peak value about 2 hours before the peak minimum Dst, corresponding to about 1 hour for the solar wind conditions to propagate to the Earth and an additional hour for the magnetosphere to respond. Li et al., (2011) conducted a statistical analysis of 89 storms with minimum Dst ranging from −100 nT to −422 nT, between 1996−2008. In this analysis, they noted a close correlative relationship between the amplitudes of the peak Bz and peak Dst, before and after removing the solar wind dynamic pressure effect. In this paper, we build upon these earlier findings extending the analysis to include more recent events.

    Despite great improvements in Dst models and investigations of solar wind conditions, there is a lack of understanding whether extreme storms differ qualitatively from major storms in Dst characteristics and interplanetary driving conditions. In this study, we analyze the relationships among minimum Dst, the time deriva- tive of Dst, the time duration of the main phase, the solar wind electric field, and IMF Bz, to elucidate features that distinguish extreme storms (minimum Dst < −250 nT) from major storms (−250 nT < minimum Dst < −100 nT).

    The hourly averaged Dst data used in this study were acquired from the World Data Center for Geomagnetism, WDC-Kyoto. The hourly average solar wind parameters were acquired from the OMNI database for all except three extreme storms, where Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) satellite data is substituted (shifted to the bow shock nose, according to the measured solar wind speed).

    The primary period of interest for our analysis is from January 1967–August 2018, when solar wind data are available. We designated major storms as minimum −250 nT < Dst < −100 nT and extreme storms as minimum Dst < −250 nT, and selected 130 storms that fit into either of the two categories. An additional 40 geomagnetic storms during January 1957–May 1992 were used only for Dst-related calculations to further improve the statistical significance for extreme storms. In some events, Dst was found to exhibit two minima before returning to a quiet level. If there was marked separation and recovery between the relative minima, they were considered to be two storms. If the two Dst minima do not have a clear separation or recovery period, the storm is treated as a single event, which is classified as a Type 2 storm in Kamide et al., (1998).

    All geomagnetic storm events were analyzed during their main phases, from the maximum Dst value before a significant decline to the absolute minimum of their Dst profiles. Storms that were separated into two events essentially were considered as two separate main phases. The interplanetary factors were analyzed during this same main-phase time frame, designated by using the Dst profiles.

    We first examine how the average rate of Dst change during the main phase (ΔDstt) varies as a function of storm strength (Figure 1a). The calculation of ΔDstt was performed by taking the difference of the minimum Dst and relative maximum at the start of the main phase and dividing it by the time difference between the two points. All 170 storms are included in the analy- sis. Overall, ΔDstt and the minimum Dst show a strong linear correlation, with a correlation coefficient of 0.66. The points with minimum Dst > −180 nT fall close to the linear trend line. However, as storms of greater strength are observed there are points deviating from the trend line with a stronger ΔDstt. For example, the two events marked with red circles denote an extreme storm on 13 March, 2001 (ΔDstt = −82.6 nT/h, minimum Dst = −387 nT) and a major storm on 15 May, 2005 (ΔDstt = −59.8 nT/h, minimum Dst = −247 nT). The common features for the outliers in Figure 1 are the strong initial pulse of Dst during the storms’ sudden commencement. With the initial positive Dst at the start of the main phase, the minimum Dst tends toward less negative values. We have confirmed this explanation by examining ΔDstt as a function of the difference between the initial and minimum Dst, which indeed has a stronger correlation without significant deviations (data not shown).

    Figure  1.  (a) Relationship between the average rate of Dst change during the main phase and minimum Dst. A linear fit is depicted with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.67. (b) Time duration of storm main phase as a function of minimum Dst.

    In order to qualitatively understand further differences between extreme and major storms, the time duration of the storm main phase was compared with minimum Dst values. Notably, the time duration of storms is a critical factor in their impact on thermosphere heating and satellite drag (Oliveira et al., 2020). In Figure 1b, we provide the context needed to not only understand potential differences between extreme and major storms on thermosphere heating and satellite drag, but also elucidates the broader implications of Figure 1a. Despite the variation in the main phase duration for weak storms, overall the duration is around 10 hours. The uniformity of the main phase duration is the underlying reason for the correlation between ΔDstt and minimum Dst.

    Next, we investigate the relationship between dDst/dt and solar wind conditions. In Figure 2, we show the scatter plot for dDst/dt and the solar wind electric field, where the hourly dDst/dt(t =$ {t}_{0} $) = (Dst($ {t}_{0} $+$ {\Delta }t $)−Dst($ {t}_{0} $$ {\Delta }t $))/ (2$ {\Delta }t $), and $ \Delta t $ is 1 hour. The analysis includes 124 events since 1967 with available solar wind parameters, primarily from the OMNI database except for three cases, in which we used ACE. The trend indicated by this figure points to higher amplitude E field as the amplitude of dDst/dt increases. It also indicates a threshold for nonlinear behavior for higher E field values: the more extreme storms in red are skewed towards the lower half of the graph in a manner that departs from the linear trend. Data are divided into six subgroups according to dDst/dt. The edges of each bin are marked by dashed vertical lines, and the black crosses indicate the medians for each bin. At the black cross shown in the bottom left of Figure 2, there is a marked deviation that again supports the presence of some bias among the more extreme storms.

    Figure  2.  Solar wind electric field as a function of the rate of change of Dst during the main phase, using 1-hour resolution OMNI and ACE data. The coloring indicates the strength of the storm with blue being the weakest and red being the strongest. The black crosses represent the median value for each sub range, while the red line is the linear fit with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.60.

    The existing studies about Dst have suggested that the solar wind dynamic pressure (P) and the ring current decay have effects on dDst/dt (e.g., O’Brien and McPherron, 2000; Wang CB et al., 2003), as shown in Equation (1). In order to account for these effects, we follow the model by Wang CB et al., (2003):

    $$ Dst^* = Dst - 7.26 \sqrt{P}+11 \;{\rm{n}}{\rm{T}}, $$ (2)

    here, P is the solar wind dynamic pressure in nanopascals (nPa).

    $$\begin{split} &Q = - 4.4(E - 0.49) {\left(P/P_{\rm{o}} \right)}^{\gamma } \; {\rm{for}} \;E > 0.49{\rm{mV/m}} \; {\rm{and}} \\ &Q = 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm{for}} \; E < 0.49 \;{\rm{mV/m}}, \end{split}$$ (3)

    in Equation (3), E represents the y-component of the solar wind electric field, with $P _{\rm{o}}$ = 3.0 nPa and γ = 0.2. The characteristic time scale for the ring current decay is as follows:

    $$ {\tau = 8.70{{\rm{e}}^{(6.6/(6.04 + P))}},\ \ \ \ \ {B_z} \ge 0,} $$ (4)
    $$ {\tau = 2.40{{\rm{e}}^{(9.74/(4.69 + E))}},\ \ \ \ {B_z} < 0,} $$ (5)

    Figure 3 helps illustrate a new correlation between the left and right-hand sides of Equation (1). The skewedness is less evident than that in Figure 2, illustrated by the proximity of the last two median values for left-most subranges to the linear trend line. It is still apparent that the black line representing the median values bends towards the lower extreme values. This in turn suggests that the pressure and decay terms remove some, but not all, of the bias towards more negative QDst*/$ \tau $ values within this dataset. Still, across both figures, the driving E components are much stronger for extreme storms, departing from the linear trend line.

    Figure  3.  Relationship of Q (E with effects of pressure and decay rate term accounted) vs. rate of pressure-corrected Dst change during the main phase, with pressure accounted for. The blue to red coloring is again indicative of storm strength from weakest to strongest. The linear fit correlation coefficient is 0.72.

    Due to the solar wind E-field’s role as a main driver of dDst/dt, we further examine the relationship between the integral of E (int E) during the storm main phase and the minimum Dst. In Figure 4, we illustrate a moderate correlation between the two parameters, though many of the extreme storms depart from the trend line’s predicted values.

    Figure  4.  Minimum Dst versus the negative integral of the E-field component during the main phase. This figure includes 124 storms and the linear correlation coefficient is 0.56.

    The interplanetary magnetic field Bz component is a major parameter of interest for storms and has long been associated with the initiation of the storm main phase (Kokubun, 1972; Gonzalez and Tsurutani, 1987). In Figure 5, we present a correlative picture of minimum Bz vs. minimum Dst, including six additional geomagnetic storms with accessible Bz data to form a dataset of 130 storms. In the weaker range of storms (> −250Dst) within Figure 5, the majority of data points are closely surrounding the linear trend line, however the extreme storms fall further from the trend line. Since the linear coefficient is fairly high, it is evident that there is a trend towards lower minimum Bz components as geomagnetic storms increase in strength. The results in Figures 4 and 5 are consistent with those presented in Gonzalez and Echer (2005). We include such analyses to emphasize the importance of sustained large values of solar wind Ey and southward IMF Bz in producing strong storms, and contrast the differences between these interplanetary measures for extreme and major storms that fall outside the scope of Gonzalez and Echer (2005). Based on the aforementioned graphical results, it is clear that extreme events tend to have more nonlinear correlations, pushing towards far-reaching values.

    Figure  5.  The relationship of the minimum z-component of the interplanetary magnetic field and the minimum value of Dst, for 130 storms (linear coefficient of r = 0.73).

    In this paper, we examined the statistical relationships between driving interplanetary factors and Dst variations to differentiate the characteristics of extreme and major geomagnetic storms during the main phase. While strong correlations were observed in this study, extreme geomagnetic storms distinguish themselves in every factor of interest. In the case of ΔDstt in relation to minimum Dst, extreme storms tend to exhibit much higher rates during their main phase than their major storm counterparts. For the relation of solar wind E and dDst/dt, driving E is much stronger than the linearly predicted E for extreme storms even after adjusting for pressure and decay rates, indicating that the solar wind electric field is less efficient in driving dDst/dt for extreme storms. The minimum Dst is correlated with the integral of E and the minimum Bz; however, the extreme storms tend to have more negative Dst than the trend for major storms.

    Our results indicate that during storms with major to extreme strengths, the magnetosphere response as an integrated system must be better understood to obtain more accurate storm predictions. In previous studies such as Wang CB et al., (2003), a uniform relationship between dDst/dt and solar wind conditions was obtained for all storms, whereas our study points out the necessity to consider qualitative differences between major and extreme storms. For example, our finding that the solar wind electric field is less efficient in driving dDst/dt for extreme storms can have important bearing on how the magnetosphere handles the increased energy input during extreme storms. The solar wind energy input to the magnetosphere is mainly through dayside reconnection, while the polar cap potential associated with the dayside reconnection rate tends to exhibit saturations at large values of the solar wind electric field, possibly related to the effects of ionosphere outflow (e.g., Borovsky and Birn, 2014; Dorelli, 2019). In other words, the increasing rate of energy input through dayside reconnection could be regulated in part by the ionosphere and consequently affect ring current variations. One of the key implications is that the extreme-storm impact on the polar ionosphere is immediate and should be better quantified as part of the magnetosphere’s response to extreme solar driving, in addition to Dst.

      S1.  List of extreme and major storms analyzed in the paper.
    Date of
    Storm
    Minimum DSTClassificationMP Start TimeMP End Time
    1957-03-02−255Extreme1957-03-02/00:00:001957-03-02/08:00:00
    1957-09-05−324Extreme1957-09-04/14:00:001957-09-05/04:00:00
    1957-09-13−427Extreme1957-09-13/02:00:001957-09-13/11:00:00
    1958-02-11−426Extreme1958-02-11/04:00:001958-02-11/12:00:00
    1958-07-08−330Extreme1958-07-08/10:00:001958-07-08/23:00:00
    1958-09-04−302Extreme1958-09-04/14:00:001958-09-04/23:00:00
    1959-07-15−429Extreme1959-07-15/09:00:001959-07-15/20:00:00
    1960-04-01−327Extreme1960-04-01/09:00:001960-04-01/19:00:00
    1960-04-30−325Extreme1960-04-30/13:00:001960-04-30/19:00:00
    1960-10-07−287Extreme1960-10-06/10:00:001960-10-07/01:00:00
    1960-11-13−339Extreme1960-11-12/22:00:001960-11-13/10:00:00
    1961-10-28−272Extreme1961-10-28/10:00:001961-10-28/19:00:00
    1967-05-26−383Extreme1967-05-25/11:00:001967-05-26/05:00:00
    1970-03-09−284Extreme1970-03-08/14:00:001970-03-08/22:00:00
    1981-04-13−311Extreme1981-04-12/22:00:001981-04-13/07:00:00
    1982-07-14−325Extreme1982-07-13/15:00:001982-07-14/01:00:00
    1982-09-06−289Extreme1982-09-05/22:00:001982-09-06/11:00:00
    1986-02-08−307Extreme1986-02-08/18:00:001986-02-09/01:00:00
    1989-03-14−589Extreme1989-03-13/09:00:001989-03-14/01:00:00
    1989-09-19−255Extreme1989-09-18/17:00:001989-09-19/04:00:00
    1989-10-21−267Extreme1989-10-20/09:00:001989-10-21/16:00:00
    1989-11-17−266Extreme1989-11-17/08:00:001989-11-17/22:00:00
    1990-04-10−281Extreme1990-04-09/21:00:001990-04-10/18:00:00
    1991-03-25−298Extreme1991-03-24/03:00:001991-03-25/00:00:00
    1991-10-29−254Extreme1991-10-28/10:00:001991-10-29/07:00:00
    1991-11-09−354Extreme1991-11-08/12:00:001991-11-09/02:00:00
    1992-05-10−288Extreme1992-05-09/19:00:001992-05-10/14:00:00
    2000-04-07−296Extreme2000-04-06/15:00:002000-04-07/00:00:00
    2000-07-15−301Extreme2000-07-15/14:00:002000-07-16/01:00:00
    2001-03-31−387Extreme2001-03-31/02:00:002001-03-31/09:00:00
    2001-04-11−271Extreme2001-04-11/15:00:002001-04-11/23:00:00
    2001-11-06−292Extreme2001-11-05/18:00:002001-11-06/07:00:00
    2003-10-29−353Extreme2003-10-29/05:00:002003-10-30/00:00:00
    2003-10-30−383Extreme2003-10-30/16:00:002003-10-30/22:00:00
    2003-11-20−422Extreme2003-11-20/08:00:002003-11-20/21:00:00
    2004-11-07−374Extreme2004-11-07/18:00:002004-11-08/06:00:00
    2004-11-10−263Extreme2004-11-10/00:00:002004-11-10/10:00:00
    1957-01-21−250Major1957-01-21/14:00:001957-01-21/23:00:00
    1957-09-29−246Major1957-09-29/12:00:001957-09-29/17:00:00
    1963-09-23−236Major1963-09-22/18:00:001963-09-23/01:00:00
    1967-01-14−160Major1967-01-13/12:00:001967-01-14/06:00:00
    1967-02-07−120Major1967-02-07/14:00:001967-02-07/23:00:00
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Continued
    Date of StormMinimum DSTClassificationMP Start TimeMP End Time
    1967-02-16−130Major1967-02-16/08:00:001967-02-16/13:00:00
    1967-12-31−109Major1967-12-30/15:00:001967-12-31/21:00:00
    1968-02-11−124Major1968-02-10/16:00:001968-02-11/11:00:00
    1968-04-05−112Major1968-04-05/16:00:001968-04-05/21:00:00
    1968-10-31−224Major1968-10-31/09:00:001968-10-31/18:00:00
    1969-02-02−186Major1969-02-02/15:00:001969-02-02/22:00:00
    1969-02-11−136Major1969-02-10/21:00:001969-02-11/18:00:00
    1969-03-24−228Major1969-03-23/13:00:001969-03-24/01:00:00
    1970-08-17−181Major1970-08-16/21:00:001970-08-17/08:00:00
    1971-04-15−143Major1971-04-14/13:00:001971-04-15/01:00:00
    1971-12-17−171Major1971-12-17/15:00:001971-12-17/20:00:00
    1972-06-18−190Major1972-06-17/19:00:001972-06-18/03:00:00
    1972-08-09−154Major1972-08-09/02:00:001972-08-09/11:00:00
    1972-09-14−146Major1972-09-13/11:00:001972-09-14/06:00:00
    1972-11-01−199Major1972-10-31/17:00:001972-11-01/08:00:00
    1973-02-21−121Major1973-02-21/13:00:001973-02-21/22:00:00
    1973-04-01−211Major1973-04-01/12:00:00 1973-04-01/22:00:00
    1973-04-14−134Major1973-04-14/05:00:001973-04-14/11:00:00
    1974-07-06−204Major1974-07-06/03:00:001974-07-06/06:00:00
    1976-01-10−156Major1976-01-10/12:00:001976-01-10/23:00:00
    1976-03-26−226Major1976-03-25/21:00:001976-03-26/08:00:00
    1976-04-01−218Major1976-04-01/02:00:001976-04-01/08:00:00
    1977-12-11−112Major1977-12-10/22:00:001977-12-11/11:00:00
    1978-08-28−226Major1978-08-27/17:00:001978-08-28/10:00:00
    1978-09-29−210Major1978-09-29/02:00:001978-09-29/09:00:00
    1978-11-25−149Major1978-11-25/12:00:001978-11-25/18:00:00
    1979-02-22−107Major1979-02-21/16:00:001979-02-21/21:00:00
    1979-03-10−140Major1979-03-10/17:00:001979-03-10/23:00:00
    1979-03-29−122Major1979-03-29/03:00:001979-03-29/21:00:00
    1979-04-04−202Major1979-04-03/14:00:001979-04-04/04:00:00
    1979-04-25−149Major1979-04-25/00:00:001979-04-25/14:00:00
    1979-08-29−140Major1979-08-29/00:00:001979-08-29/18:00:00
    1980-05-25−126Major1980-05-25/03:00:001980-05-25/13:00:00
    1980-12-19−240Major1980-12-19/11:00:001980-12-19/18:00:00
    1981-03-05−215Major1981-03-05/05:00:001981-03-05/17:00:00
    1981-05-09−119Major1981-05-09/00:00:001981-05-09/07:00:00
    1981-05-11−137Major1981-05-10/15:00:001981-05-11/04:00:00
    1981-05-16−119Major1981-05-16/05:00:001981-05-16/14:00:00
    1981-05-18−118Major1981-05-17/23:00:001981-05-18/06:00:00
    1981-07-25−226Major1981-07-25/10:00:001981-07-25/20:00:00
    1981-10-11−113Major1981-10-10/16:00:001981-10-11/15:00:00
    1981-10-22−177Major1981-10-22/08:00:001981-10-22/17:00:00
    1982-02-02−112Major1982-02-02/03:00:001982-02-02/12:00:00
    1982-02-05−111Major1982-02-04/18:00:00 1982-02-05/03:00:00
    1982-02-10−105Major1982-02-10/09:00:001982-02-10/20:00:00
    1982-03-02−211Major1982-03-01/11:00:001982-03-02/05:00:00
    1982-04-10−137Major1982-04-10/00:00:001982-04-10/20:00:00
    1982-11-22−112Major1982-11-21/15:00:001982-11-22/05:00:00
    1982-11-24−197Major1982-11-24/11:00:001982-11-24/17:00:00
    1982-12-17−106Major1982-12-15/19:00:001982-12-17/13:00:00
    1983-01-10−213Major1983-01-09/23:00:001983-01-10/07:22:00
    1988-01-14−147Major1988-01-14/14:00:001988-01-14/23:00:00
    1988-04-22−109Major1988-04-21/21:00:001988-04-22/10:00:00
    1989-04-26−127Major1989-04-25/16:00:001989-04-26/06:00:00
    1989-08-15−147Major1989-08-14/06:00:001989-08-15/05:00:00
    1989-08-28−152Major1989-08-28/16:00:001989-08-29/05:00:00
    1989-11-13−131Major1989-11-12/22:00:001989-11-13/18:00:00
    1989-12-30−103Major1989-12-29/08:00:001989-12-30/00:00:00
    1991-08-30−107Major1991-08-30/06:00:001991-08-30/21:00:00
    1991-11-01−196Major1991-11-01/11:00:001991-11-01/23:00:00
    1991-11-21−139Major1991-11-21/01:00:001991-11-22/01:00:00
    1993-03-09−137Major1993-03-08/22:00:001993-03-09/06:00:00
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Continued
    Date of StormMinimum DSTClassificationMP Start TimeMP End Time
    1994-04-17−201Major1994-04-16/23:00:001994-04-17/08:00:00
    1995-04-07−149Major1995-04-07/01:00:001995-04-07/16:00:00
    1995-10-18−127Major1995-10-18/12:00:001995-10-18/23:00:00
    1997-05-15−115Major1997-05-15/02:00:001997-05-15/12:00:00
    1997-10-11−130Major1997-10-10/17:00:001997-10-11/03:00:00
    1997-11-23−108Major1997-11-22/20:00:001997-11-23/06:00:00
    1998-05-04−205Major1998-05-04/02:00:001998-05-04/05:00:00
    1998-09-25−207Major1998-09-24/23:00:001998-09-25/09:00:00
    2000-08-12−235Major2000-08-12/00:00:002000-08-12/09:00:00
    2001-08-17−105Major2001-08-17/11:00:002001-08-17/21:00:00
    2001-09-26−102Major2001-09-25/19:00:002001-09-26/01:00:00
    2001-10-01−148Major2001-09-30/21:00:00 2001-10-01/08:00:00
    2001-10-03−166Major2001-10-03/05:00:002001-10-03/14:00:00
    2001-10-21−187Major2001-10-21/15:00:002001-10-21/21:00:00
    2001-10-28−157Major2001-10-28/03:00:002001-10-28/11:00:00
    2001-11-24−221Major2001-11-24/05:00:002001-11-24/17:00:00
    2002-04-18−127Major2002-04-17/10:00:002002-04-18/08:00:00
    2002-04-20−149Major2002-04-19/08:00:002002-04-20/08:00:00
    2002-05-11−110Major2002-05-11/09:00:002002-05-11/19:00:00
    2002-05-23−109Major2002-05-23/10:00:002002-05-23/17:00:00
    2002-08-02−102Major2002-08-01/22:00:002002-08-02/05:00:00
    2002-08-21−106Major2002-08-20/16:00:002002-08-21/06:00:00
    2002-09-03−109Major2002-09-03/18:00:002002-09-04/05:00:00
    2002-09-08−181Major2002-09-07/13:00:002002-09-08/00:00:00
    2002 -10-01−162Major2002-10-01/04:00:002002-10-01/16:00:00
    2002-10-04−146Major2002-10-03/08:00:002002-10-04/08:00:00
    2002-10-07−115Major2002-10-07/00:00:002002-10-07/07:00:00
    2002-11-21−128Major2002-11-21/01:00:002002-11-21/10:00:00
    2003-05-30−144Major2003-05-29/12:00:002003-05-29/23:00:00
    2003-06-18−141Major2003-06-18/01:00:002003-06-18/09:00:00
    2003-07-12−105Major2003-07-10/17:00:002003-07-12/05:00:00
    2003-08-18−148Major2003-08-17/13:00:002003-08-18/15:00:00
    2004-01-22−130Major2004-01-22/01:00:002004-01-22/13:00:00
    2004-04-03−117Major2004-04-03/13:00:002004-04-04/00:00:00
    2004-07-25−136Major2004-07-24/05:00:002004-07-25/16:00:00
    2004-07-27−150Major2004-07-26/21:00:002004-07-27/13:00:00
    2004-08-30−129Major2004-08-30/00:00:002004-08-30/22:00:00
    2005-01-18−103Major2005-01-17/14:00:002005-01-18/08:00:00
    2005-05-08−106Major2005-05-07/18:00:002005-05-08/18:00:00
    2005-05-15−247Major2005-05-15/02:00:002005-05-15/08:00:00
    2005-05-30−113Major2005-05-29/21:00:002005-05-30/13:00:00
    2005-06-12−106Major2005-06-12/16:00:00 2005-06-13/00:00:00
    2005-08-24−184Major2005-08-24/05:00:002005-08-24/11:00:00
    2005-08-31−122Major2005-08-31/11:00:002005-08-31/19:00:00
    2005-09-11−139Major2005-09-11/01:00:002005-09-11/10:00:00
    2006-12-15−162Major2006-12-14/13:00:002006-12-15/07:00:00
    2011-08-05−115Major2011-08-05/18:00:002011-08-06/03:00:00
    2011-09-26−118Major2011-09-26/12:00:002011-09-26/23:00:00
    2011-10-24−147Major2011-10-24/18:00:002011-10-25/02:00:00
    2012-03-09−145Major2012-03-08/10:00:002012-03-09/08:00:00
    2012-04-24−120Major2012-04-23/03:00:002012-04-24/04:00:00
    2012-07-15−139Major2012-07-14/23:00:002012-07-15/16:00:00
    2012-10-01−122Major2012-09-30/12:00:002012-10-01/04:00:00
    2012-10-09−109Major2012-10-08/04:00:00 2012-10-09/08:00:00
    2012-11-14−108Major2012-11-13/17:00:002012-11-14/07:00:00
    2013-03-17−132Major2013-03-17/05:00:00013-03-17/20:00:00
    2013-06-01−124Major2013-05-31/23:00:002013-06-01/08:00:00
    2014-02-19−119Major2014-02-18/13:00:002014-02-19/08:00:00
    2015-03-17−222Major2015-03-17/04:00:002015-03-17/22:00:00
    2015-06-23−204Major2015-06-22/17:00:002015-06-23/04:00:00
    2015-10-07−124Major2015-10-07/01:00:002015-10-07/22:00:00
    2015-12-21−155Major2015-12-19/22:00:002015-12-20/22:00:00
    2016-10-13−103Major2016-10-13/02:00:002016-10-13/23:00:00
    2017-05-28−125Major2017-05-27/20:00:002017-05-28/07:00:00
    2017-09-08−124Major2017-09-07/20:00:002017-09-08/01:00:00
    2018-08-26−174Major2018-08-25/12:00:002018-08-26/07:00:00
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The work is supported by NSF grant AGS-1619584. Dst data are sourced from the World-Data Center for Geomagnetism-Kyoto (http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/); solar wind parameters are obtained from the OMNI dataset and ACE spacecraft measurements (https://cdaweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html/).

  • Alex, S., Mukherjee, S., and Lakhina, G. S. (2006). Geomagnetic signatures during the intense geomagnetic storms of 29 October and 20 November 2003. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 68(7), 769–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2006.01.003
    Borovsky, J. E., and Birn, J. (2014). The solar wind electric field does not control the dayside reconnection rate. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 119(2), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JA019193
    Burton, R. K., McPherron, R. L., and Russell, C. T. (1975). An empirical relationship between interplanetary conditions and Dst. J. Geophys. Res., 80(31), 4204–4214. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA080i031p04204
    Daglis, I. A., Thorne, R. M., Baumjohann, W., and Orsini, S. (1999). The terrestrial ring current: Origin, formation, and decay. Rev. Geophys., 37(4), 407–438. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999RG900009
    Dorelli, J. C. (2019). Does the solar wind electric field control the reconnection rate at Earth's subsolar magnetopause?. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 124(4), 2668–2681. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025868
    Gonzalez, W. D., and Tsurutani, B. T. (1987). Criteria of interplanetary parameters causing intense magnetic storms (D st < -100 nT). Planet. Space Sci., 35(9), 1101–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(87)90015-8
    Gonzalez, W. D., and Echer, E. (2005). A study on the peak Dst and peak negative Bz relationship during intense geomagnetic storms. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(18), L18103. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023486
    Iyemori, T. (1990). Storm-time magnetospheric currents inferred from mid-latitude geomagnetic field variations. J. Geomag. Geoelec., 42(11), 1249–1265. https://doi.org/10.5636/jgg.42.1249
    Ji, E. Y., Moon, Y. J., Gopalswamy, N., and Lee, D. H. (2012). Comparison of Dst forecast models for intense geomagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 117(A3), A03209. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JA016872
    Kamide, Y., Yokoyama N., Gonzalez W., Tsurutani B. T., Daglis I. A., Brekke A., and Masuda S. (1998). Two-step development of geomagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 103(A4), 6917–6921. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA03337
    Kokubun, S. (1972). Relationship of interplanetary magnetic field structure with development of substorm and storm main phase. Planet. Space Sci., 20(7), 1033–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(72)90214-0
    Lakhina, G. S., and Tsurutani, B. T. (2017). Supergeomagnetic storms: past, present, and future. In N. Buzulukova (Ed.), Extreme Events in Geospace (pp. 157-185). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812700-1.00007-8
    Li, Q., Gao, Y. F., Zhu, P. Y., Chen, H. R., and Zhang, X. L. (2011). Statistical study on great geomagnetic storms during solar cycle 23. Earthq. Sci., 24(4), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11589-011-0799-x
    O’Brien, T. P., and McPherron, R. L. (2000). An empirical phase space analysis of ring current dynamics: solar wind control of injection and decay. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 105(A4), 7707–7719. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998JA000437
    Oliveira, D. M., Zesta, E., Hayakawa, H., and Bhaskar, A. (2020). Estimating satellite orbital drag during historical magnetic superstorms. Space Wea., 18(11), e2020SW002472. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002472
    Rawat, R., Alex S., and Lakhina, G. S. (2007). Geomagnetic storm characteristics under varied interplanetary conditions. Bull. Astr. Soc. India, 35, 499–509.
    Rawat, R., Alex S., and Lakhina, G. S. (2010). Storm-time characteristics of intense geomagnetic storms (Dst ≤ -200 nT) at low-latitudes and associatedenergetics. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 72(18), 1364–1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2010.09.029
    Rostoker, G., Friedrich E., and Dobbs, M. (1997). Physics of magnetic storms. In B. T. Tsurutani, et al., (Eds.), Magnetic Storms. (pp. 149-160). Washington: American Geophysical Union. https://doi.org/10.1029/GM098p0149
    Sitnov, M. I., Tsyganenko, N. A., Ukhorskiy, A. Y., and Brandt, P. C. (2008). Dynamical data-based modeling of the storm-time geomagnetic field with enhanced spatial resolution. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 113(A7), A07218. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JA013003
    Stephens, G. K., Sitnov, M. I., Korth, H., Tsyganenko, N. A., Ohtani, S., Gkioulidou, M., and Ukhorskiy, A. Y. (2019). Global empirical picture of magnetospheric substorms inferred from multimission magnetometer data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124(2), 1085–1110. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025843
    Temerin, M., and Li, X. (2006). Dst model for 1995–2002. J. Geophys. Res., 111(A04221). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JA011257
    Vichare, G., Alex, S., and Lakhina G. S. (2005). Some characteristics of intense geomagnetic storms and their energy budget. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 110(A3), A03204. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010418
    Wang, C. B., Chao, J. K., and Lin, C. H. (2003). Influence of the solar wind dynamic pressure on the decay and injection of the ring current. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 108(A9), 1341. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA009851
    Wanliss, J. A., and Showalter, K. M. (2006). High-resolution global storm index: Dst versus SYM-H. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 111(A2), A02202. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JA011034
    Yokoyama, N., and Kamide, Y. (1997). Statistical nature of geomagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 102(A7), 14215–14222. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA00903
  • Related Articles

Catalog

    Figures(5)  /  Tables(3)

    Article views (2638) PDF downloads (47) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return