The Extreme Space Weather Event in 1903 October/November: An Outburst from the Quiet Sun

Hayakawa, Hisashi; Ribeiro, Paulo; Vaquero, J. M.; Gallego, M. C.; Knipp, D. J.; Mekhaldi, Florian; Bhaskar, Ankush; Oliveira, D. M.; Notsu, Yuta; Carrasco, V. M. S.; Caccavari, Ana; Veenadhari, B.; Mukherjee, Shyamoli; Ebihara, Yusuke

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab6a18

Cited by 43 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The estimated amplitude rates are −46.4 and −80.0 nT/hr for the October/November 1903 and May 1921 events, respectively. These numbers explain why the effects of the 1921 event, such as equatorial extent of low‐latitude aurorae (Chree, 1921; Silverman & Cliver, 2001), and GIC impacts on contemporary telegraph systems (Hapgood, 2019; Kappenman, 2006) were more severe than the effects of the 1903 event, mostly represented by midlatitude aurorae (Hayakawa et al., 2020; Page, 1903), and local GIC impacts on contemporary telegraph systems in the United States and in the Iberian Peninsula (Hayakawa et al., 2020; Ribeiro et al., 2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, current knowledge of thermospheric mass density response to magnetic supersotorms and the subsequent storm-time drag effects are very limited. Then, in order to estimate these effects, 4 historical magnetic superstorms with complete magnetograms were selected: one with standard Dst data (March 1989), and 3 with Dst † (Dst-like) data occurring on October/November 1903 (Hayakawa, Ribeiro, et al, 2020), September 1909(Love et al, 2019b, and May 1921 (Love et al, 2019a). These Dst and Dst † data were used as input data for the JB2008 thermosphric empirical model for density computations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Estimating Satellite Orbital Drag During Historical Magnetic Superstorms

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding extreme space weather events is of paramount importance in efforts to protect technological systems in space and on the ground. Particularly in the thermosphere, the subsequent extreme magnetic storms can pose serious threats to low-Earth orbit (LEO) spacecraft by intensifying errors in orbit predictions. Extreme magnetic storms (minimum Dst ≤-250 nT) are extremely rare: only 7 events occurred during the era of spacecraft with high-level accelerometers such as CHAMP (CHAllenge Mini-satellite Payload) and GRACE (Gravity Recovery And Climate experiment), and none with minimum Dst ≤-500 nT, here termed magnetic superstorms. Therefore, current knowledge of thermospheric mass density response to superstorms is very limited. Thus, in order to advance this knowledge, four known magnetic superstorms in history, i.e., events occurring before CHAMPs and GRACEs commission times, with complete datasets, are used to empirically estimate density enhancements and subsequent orbital drag. The November 2003 magnetic storm (minimum Dst =-422 nT), the most extreme event observed by both satellites, is used as the benchmark event. Results show that, as expected, orbital degradation is more severe for the most intense storms. Additionally, results clearly point out that the time duration of the storm is strongly associated with storm-time orbital drag effects, being as important as or even more important than storm intensity itself. The most extreme storm-time decays during CHAMP/GRACE-like sample satellite orbits estimated for the March 1989 magnetic superstorm show that long-lasting superstorms can have highly detrimental consequences for the orbital dynamics of satellites in LEO.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Satellite Orbital Drag During Historical Magnetic Superstorms

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This identifies a specific “quiet interval” of the solar cycle which begins approximately α ≃2 π /5 (or 2.2 normalized years) before and ends approximately α ≃2 π /5 (or 2.2 normalized years) after the 18 cycle average phase of solar minimum as indicated by the blue lines on the clock; these can be seen to closely coincide with the terminator and pre‐terminator. The 1903 storm that is associated with a quiet Sun outburst (Hayakawa et al, 2020) can be seen in Figure 3 just after the average terminator location outside this quiet interval. The terminator time, estimated from solar observations, then is potentially a tool to support operational decision making as it flags an imminent increase in the likelihood of more severe space weather activity.…”

Section: Sun Clocks For Solar and Geomagnetic Activitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Quantifying the Solar Cycle Modulation of Extreme Space Weather

Chapman

McIntosh

Leamon

et al. 2020

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By obtaining the analytic signal of daily sunspot numbers since 1818 we construct a new solar cycle phase clock that maps each of the last 18 solar cycles onto a single normalized 11 year epoch. This clock orders solar coronal activity and extremes of the aa index, which tracks geomagnetic storms at the Earth's surface over the last 14 solar cycles. We identify geomagnetically quiet intervals that are 40% of the normalized cycle, ±2π/5 in phase or ±2.2 years around solar minimum. Since 1868 only two severe (aa>300 nT) and one extreme (aa>500 nT) geomagnetic storms occurred in quiet intervals; 1–3% of severe (aa>300 nT) geomagnetic storms and 4–6% of C‐, M‐, and X‐class solar flares occurred in quiet intervals. This provides quantitative support to planning resilience against space weather impacts since only a few percent of all severe storms occur in quiet intervals and their start and end times are quantifiable.

show abstract

“…Statistical studies show a fairly good empirical correlation between the storm intensity (minimum Dst index) and the equatorward boundary of the auroral oval (Schulz, 1994; Silverman, 2006; Yokoyama et al, 1998). Indeed, all four outstanding aurorae reviewed by Chapman (1957)—namely those in September 1859 (Blake et al, 2020; Cliver & Dietrich, 2013; Gonzalez et al, 2011; Hayakawa, Ebihara, Hand, et al, 2018; Hayakawa, Ribeiro, Ebihara, et al, 2020; Hayakawa et al, 2016; Lakhina & Tsurutani, 2018; Silverman, 2006; Siscoe et al, 2006; Tsurutani et al, 2003), February 1872 (Hayakawa, Ebihara, Willis, et al, 2018; Silverman, 2008; Tsurutani et al, 2005), September 1909 (Hayakawa, Ebihara, Cliver, et al, 2019; Love et al, 2019a; Silverman, 1995), and May 1921 (Hapgood, 2019; Silverman & Cliver, 2001)—have been confirmed as geomagnetic superstorms of Dst/Dst* ≤ −500 nT (Cliver & Dietrich, 2013; Hayakawa, Ebihara, Willis, et al, 2018, 2019; Love et al, 2019a, 2019b; Riley et al, 2018) and compared with two more superstorms with midlatitude aurorae in October/November 1903 and March 1946 (Hayakawa, Ribeiro, Vaquero, et al, 2020; Hayakawa, Ebihara, et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

An Analysis of Trouvelot's Auroral Drawing on 1/2 March 1872: Plausible Evidence for Recurrent Geomagnetic Storms

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work examines Trouvelot's observations and drawing of an auroral display during the night of 1 March 1872. It is known that the auroral oval moves equatorward to midlatitude and even low latitude during large geomagnetic storms. Trouvelot's graphical record of the great aurora on 1 March 1872 has been often cited as a remarkable example of a midlatitude aurora, although it is puzzling that this apparently occurred on a geomagnetically quiet day. Kataoka et al. (2019, JSWSC, 9, A16) even criticised this as a dating error. Here, we investigate Trouvelot's descriptions and available geomagnetic measurements in detail. Our analysis shows that the original date of Trouvelot's auroral drawing is most probably accurate in local time. Moreover, Trouvelot's descriptions and the observational site show that the auroral visibility fell at the beginning of 2 March 1872 in Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Consulting simultaneous variations of magnetograms at Helsinki and Greenwich, we found that the nightside aurora specifically coincides with the initial phase of the storm (substorm) and suggests a close association with a substorm triggered by sudden magnetospheric compression. This case study shows that short geomagnetic storms can be overlooked in a daily aa index and they can also cause midlatitude aurorae. Moreover, we found ≈27-day intervals between this storm, the extreme storms on 4-6 February 1872, and another "bright aurora" that was reported on 6 January 1872. Based on their intervals, these midlatitude aurorae have probably resulted from recurrent solar activity.

show abstract

The Extreme Space Weather Event in 1903 October/November: An Outburst from the Quiet Sun

Cited by 43 publications

References 38 publications

Estimating Satellite Orbital Drag During Historical Magnetic Superstorms

Estimating Satellite Orbital Drag During Historical Magnetic Superstorms

Quantifying the Solar Cycle Modulation of Extreme Space Weather

An Analysis of Trouvelot's Auroral Drawing on 1/2 March 1872: Plausible Evidence for Recurrent Geomagnetic Storms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About