Search for: All records

Abstract We have developed a new procedure for combining lists of substorm onset times from multiple sources. We apply this procedure to observational data and to magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) model output from 1–31 January 2005. We show that this procedure is capable of rejecting false positive identifications and filling data gaps that appear in individual lists. The resulting combined onset lists produce a waiting time distribution that is comparable to previously published results, and superposed epoch analyses of the solar wind driving conditions and magnetospheric response during the resulting onset times are also comparable to previous results. Comparison of the substorm onset list from the MHD model to that obtained from observational data reveals that the MHD model reproduces many of the characteristic features of the observed substorms, in terms of solar wind driving, magnetospheric response, and waiting time distribution. Heidke skill scores show that the MHD model has statistically significant skill in predicting substorm onset times. 

Abstract Previously, Tsurutani and Lakhina (2014,https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058825) created estimates for a “perfect” interplanetary coronal mass ejection and performed simple calculations for the response of geospace, including. In this study, these estimates are used to drive a coupled magnetohydrodynamic‐ring current‐ionosphere model of geospace to obtain more physically accurate estimates of the geospace response to such an event. The sudden impulse phase is examined and compared to the estimations of Tsurutani and Lakhina (2014,https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058825). The physics‐based simulation yields similar estimates for Dst rise, magnetopause compression, and equatorialvalues as the previous study. However, results diverge away from the equator.values in excess of 30 nT/s are found as low asmagnetic latitude. Under southward interplanetary magnetic field conditions, magnetopause erosion combines with strong region one Birkeland currents to intensify theresponse. Values obtained here surpass those found in historically recorded events and set the upper threshold of extreme geomagnetically induced current activity at Earth. 

The space physics community continues to grow and become both more interdisciplinary and more intertwined with commercial and government operations. This has created a need for a framework to easily identify what projects can be used for specific applications and how close the tool is to routine autonomous or on-demand implementation and operation. We propose the Application Usability Level (AUL) framework and publicizing AULs to help the community quantify the progress of successful applications, metrics, and validation efforts. This framework will also aid the scientific community by supplying the type of information needed to build off of previously published work and publicizing the applications and requirements needed by the user communities. In this paper, we define the AUL framework, outline the milestones required for progression to higher AULs, and provide example projects utilizing the AUL framework. This work has been completed as part of the activities of the Assessment of Understanding and Quantifying Progress working group which is part of the International Forum for Space Weather Capabilities Assessment. 

Abstract Geomagnetic indices are convenient quantities that distill the complicated physics of some region or aspect of near‐Earth space into a single parameter. Most of the best‐known indices are calculated from ground‐based magnetometer data sets, such as Dst, SYM‐H, Kp, AE, AL, and PC. Many models have been created that predict the values of these indices, often using solar wind measurements upstream from Earth as the input variables to the calculation. This document reviews the current state of models that predict geomagnetic indices and the methods used to assess their ability to reproduce the target index time series. These existing methods are synthesized into a baseline collection of metrics for benchmarking a new or updated geomagnetic index prediction model. These methods fall into two categories: (1) fit performance metrics such as root‐mean‐square error and mean absolute error that are applied to a time series comparison of model output and observations and (2) event detection performance metrics such as Heidke Skill Score and probability of detection that are derived from a contingency table that compares model and observation values exceeding (or not) a threshold value. A few examples of codes being used with this set of metrics are presented, and other aspects of metrics assessment best practices, limitations, and uncertainties are discussed, including several caveats to consider when using geomagnetic indices.