Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70222574

Numerical simulations of the geospace response to the arrival of an idealized perfect interplanetary coronal mass ejection

Daniel T. Welling·Jeffrey J. Love·E. Joshua Rigler·Denny M. Oliveira·Colin M. Komar·Steven Morley
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

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 equatorial values as the previous study. However, results diverge away from the equator. values in excess of 30 nT/s are found as low as magnetic latitude. Under southward interplanetary magnetic field conditions, magnetopause erosion combines with strong region one Birkeland currents to intensify the response. Values obtained here surpass those found in historically recorded events and set the upper threshold of extreme geomagnetically induced current activity at Earth.

Explore related subjects

Space WeatherArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Daniel T. Welling, Jeffrey J. Love, E. Joshua Rigler, Denny M. Oliveira, Colin M. Komar, Steven Morley. 2021-02-19. Numerical simulations of the geospace response to the arrival of an idealized perfect interplanetary coronal mass ejection. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020sw002489

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2025

The impact of the May 1921 superstorm on American telecommunication systems

A compilation is presented of impacts (interference and damage) realized on long-line telegraph and telephone systems across North America during the 13-16 May 1921 magnetic storm. Impacts occurred primarily during local nighttime, after the third of four sudden commencements, and during the storm’s most-prominent main phase. Impacts are attributed to rapid and high-amplitude geomagnetic field variation generated by substorms. This induced potential di erences and between the grounding points of communication networks that were su cient to cause system interference and damage. In the United States, impacts were concentrated in the Midwest and in the East, regions characterized by high electromagnetic surface impedance. Given technological changes, modern telecommunication systems are less exposed to storms like that of May 1921, while power-grid systems are now more exposed to them.

Space Weather↗
USGS2025

What is the lowest latitude of discrete aurorae during superstorms?

From a survey of published accounts of visual sightings of aurorae, a compilation is presented of the lowest identified geomagnetic latitude at which discrete aurorae were seen at local zenith during magnetic storms having intensities with maximum − Dst > 200 nT. The compilation includes data for the superstorms of 2 September 1859, 4 February 1872, and 15 May 1921. A statistical model is developed representing the equatorward boundary of discrete aurorae versus storm intensity. The model indicates that a once-per-century storm would likely induce discrete aurorae at zenith down to a geomagnetic latitude of 34 ° . Insofar as aurorae can be taken as a proxy for electrojet currents, such a storm would expose many nighttime electric-power systems, in the contiguous United States or Europe, to high levels of geomagnetic disturbance. A Carrington-class storm would induce discrete aurorae down to 24 ° . These exposures are much greater than those indicated in recent numerical simulations of extreme magnetic storms. Using the model to infer storm intensity from reports of low-latitude aurorae, a storm on 28 August 1859, likely had maximum − Dst = 673 nT. That this storm occurred just a few days before the Carrington storm of 2 September (maximum − Dst = 964 nT) deserves attention. A storm that occurred on 17 September 1770 is estimated to have had maximum − Dst = 928 nT. The vision of Ezekiel could have been inspired by aurorae from a storm with maximum − Dst = 550 nT.

Space Weather↗
USGS2025

Multi-scale intense geoelectric and geomagnetic field perturbations observed after an interplanetary magnetic field turning

Intense geoelectric fields during geomagnetic storms generate geomagnetically induced currents in power grids and other infrastructure, necessitating an understanding of their causes, for example, through coordinated space and ground observations. This study investigates localized intense geoelectric ( E ) and geomagnetic ( B ) field perturbations following an Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) turning during a geomagnetic storm on 25 October 2011. Observations from EarthScope magnetotelluric sites in the upper Midwest United States revealed shorter period ( ∼ 1 min) ultra-low-frequency (ULF) waves superimposed on longer period ( ∼ 10 min) perturbations in both E and B fields. These sites, located at ∼ 19 hr magnetic local time and 56 −57 ° magnetic latitude, recorded large amplitude E and B perturbations. Ground-based all-sky imagers showed auroral brightening with sunward and poleward propagation, while upstream spacecraft linked the perturbations to an IMF turning and solar wind dynamic pressure impulse. The longer-period E and B field perturbations likely stem from localized ionospheric currents tied to substorm auroral activity post-IMF turning. The combination of ionospheric currents, ULF waves, and the Earth's varying conductivity produces intense geoelectric fields of ≥ 2 V/km in the upper Midwest. A comparison using input data and software compatible with the NOAA/USGS geoelectric field nowcast model revealed its limitations in capturing such events due to the temporal and spatial resolution of the underlying data. Using 1-s geomagnetic field data can improve geoelectric field models by capturing short-period and large spatial scale waves, although localized magnetic perturbations remain underestimated due to insufficient ground magnetometer density.

Space Weather↗