An algorithm is presented for predicting the ground‐based Dst index solely from a knowledge of the velocity and density of the solar wind and the north‐south solar magnetospheric component of the interplanetary magnetic field. The three key elements of this model are an adjustment for solar wind dynamic pressure, an injection rate linearly proportional to the dawn‐to‐dusk component of the interplanetary electric field which is zero for electric fields below 0.5 mV m−1, and an exponential decay rate of the ring current with an e folding time of 7.7 hours. The algorithm is used to predict the Dst signature of seven geomagnetic storm intervals in 1967 and 1968. In addition to being quite successful, considering the simplicity of the model, the algorithm pinpoints the causes of various types of storm behavior. A main phase is initiated whenever the dawn‐to‐dusk solar magnetospheric component of the interplanetary electric field becomes large and positive. It is preceded by an initial phase of increased Dst if the solar wind dynamic pressure increases suddenly prior to the main phase. The recovery phase is initiated when the injection rate governed by the interplanetary electric field drops below the ring current decay rate associated with the ring current strength built up during the main phase. Variable recovery rates are generally due to additional injection during the recovery phase. This one algorithm accounts for magnetospheric behavior at quiet and at disturbed times and seems capable of predicting the behavior of Dst during even the largest of storms.

The near‐Earth neutral line (NENL) model of magnetospheric substorms is reviewed. The observed phenomenology of substorms is discussed including the role of coupling with the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field, the growth phase sequence, the expansion phase (and onset), and the recovery phase. New observations and modeling results are put into the context of the prior model framework. Significant issues and concerns about the shortcomings of the NENL model are addressed. Such issues as ionosphere‐tail coupling, large‐scale mapping, onset triggering, and observational timing are discussed. It is concluded that the NENL model is evolving and being improved so as to include new observations and theoretical insights. More work is clearly required in order to incorporate fully the complete set of ionospheric, near‐tail, midtail, and deep tail features of substorms. Nonetheless, the NENL model still seems to provide the best available framework for ordering the complex, global manifestations of substorms.

The semiannual variation in geomagnetic activity is well established in geomagnetic data Its explanation has remained elusive, however. We propose, simply, that it is caused by a semiannual variation in the effective southward component of the interplanetary field. The southward field arises because the interplanetary field is ordered in the solar equatorial coordinate system, whereas the interaction with the magnetosphere is controlled by a-magnetospheric system. Several simple models utilizing this effective modulation of the southward component of the interplanetary field are examined. One of these closely predicts the observed phase and amplitude of the semiannual variation. This model assumes that northward interplanetary fields are noninteracting and that the interaction with southward fields is ordered in solar magnetospheric coordinates. The prediction of the diurnal variation of the strength of the interaction at the magnetopause by this model, does not, however, match the diurnal variation of geomagnetic activity as derived from ground-based data. However, predictions of the dependence of geomagnetic activity on the polarity of the interplanetary magnetic field and of a 22-year cycle in geomagnetic activity are confirmed by studies of ground-based data. It appears that the mechanism controlling the semiannual variation of geomagnetic activity has been identified but that a quantitative model must await further refinements in our knowledge of the solar wind-magnetosphere coupling.

[1] Solar wind fast streams emanating from solar coronal holes cause recurrent, moderate intensity geomagnetic activity at Earth. Intense magnetic field regions called Corotating Interaction Regions or CIRs are created by the interaction of fast streams with upstream slow streams. Because of the highly oscillatory nature of the GSM magnetic field z component within CIRs, the resultant magnetic storms are typically only weak to moderate in intensity. CIR-generated magnetic storm main phases of intensity Dst < À100 nT (major storms) are rare. The elongated storm ''recovery'' phases which are characterized by continuous AE activity that can last for up to 27 days (a solar rotation) are caused by nonlinear Alfven waves within the high streams proper. Magnetic reconnection associated with the southward (GSM) components of the Alfvén waves is the solar wind energy transfer mechanism. The acceleration of relativistic electrons occurs during these magnetic storm ''recovery'' phases. The magnetic reconnection associated with the Alfvén waves cause continuous, shallow injections of plasma sheet plasma into the magnetosphere. The asymmetric plasma is unstable to wave (chorus and other modes) growth, a feature central to many theories of electron acceleration. It is noted that the continuous AE activity is not a series of substorm expansion phases. Arguments are also presented why these AE activity intervals are not convection bays. The auroras during these continuous AE activity intervals are less intense than substorm auroras and are global (both dayside and nightside) in nature. Owing to the continuous nature of this activity, it is possible that there is greater average energy input into the magnetosphere/ ionosphere system during far declining phases of the solar cycle compared with those during solar maximum. The discontinuities and magnetic decreases (MDs) associated with interplanetary Alfven waves may be important for geomagnetic activity. In conclusion, it will be shown that geomagnetic storms associated with high-speed streams/CIRs will have the same initial, main, and ''recovery'' phases as those associated with ICME-related magnetic storms but that the interplanetary causes are considerably different.

In the eight preceding papers, two magnetospheric substorms on August 15, 1968, were studied with data derived from many sources. In this, the concluding paper, we attempt a synthesis of these observations, presenting a phenomenological model of the magnetospheric substorm. On the basis of our results for August 15, together with previous reports, we believe that the substorm sequence can be divided into three main phases: the growth phase, the expansion phase, and the recovery phase. Observations for each of the first three substorms on this day are organized according to this scheme. We present these observations as three distinct chronologies, which we then summarize as a phenomenological model. This model is consistent with most of our observations on August 15, as well as with most previous reports. In our interpretation we expand our phenomenological model, briefly described in several preceding papers. This model follows closely the theoretical ideas presented more quantitatively in recent papers by Coroniti and Kennel (1972a, b; 1973). A southward turning of the interplanetary magnetic field is accompanied by erosion of the dayside magnetosphere, flux transport to the geomagnetic tail, and thinning and inward motion of the plasma sheet. Our observations indicate, furthermore, that the expansion phase of substorms can originate near the inner edge of the plasma sheet as a consequence of rapid plasma sheet thinning. At this time a portion of the inner edge of the tail current is ‘short circuited’ through the ionosphere. This process is consistent with the formation of a neutral point in the near‐tail region and its subsequent propagation tailward. However, the onset of the expansion phase of substorms is found to be far from a simple process. Expansion phases can be centered at local times far from midnight, can apparently be localized to one meridian, and can have multiple onsets centered at different local times. Such behavior indicates that, in comparing observations occurring in different substorms, careful note should be made of the localization and central meridian of each substorm.