关于 1859 年卡灵顿风暴的不确定强度估计

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Jeffrey J. Love, E. Joshua Rigler, Hisashi Hayakawa, K. Mursula
{"title":"关于 1859 年卡灵顿风暴的不确定强度估计","authors":"Jeffrey J. Love, E. Joshua Rigler, Hisashi Hayakawa, K. Mursula","doi":"10.1051/swsc/2024015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A study is made of the intensity of the Carrington magnetic storm of September 1859 as inferred from visual measurements of horizontal-component geomagnetic disturbance made at the Colaba observatory in India. Using data from modern observatories, a lognormal statistical model of storm intensity is developed, to characterize the maximum-negative value of the storm-time disturbance index (maximum $-Dst$) versus geomagnetic disturbance recorded at low-latitude observatories during magnetic storms. With this model and a recently published presentation of the Colaba data, the most likely maximum $-Dst$ of the Carrington storm and its credibility interval are estimated. A related model is used to examine individual Colaba disturbance values reported for the Carrington storm. Results indicate that only about one in a million storms with maximum $-Dst$ like the Carrington storm would result in local disturbance greater than that reported from Colaba. This indicates that either the Colaba data were affected by magnetospheric-ionospheric current systems in addition to the ring current, or there might be something wrong with the Colaba data. If the most extreme Colaba disturbance value is included in the analysis, then, of all hypothetical storms generating the hourly average disturbance recorded at Colaba during the Carrington storm, the median maximum $-Dst = 964$~nT, with a 68\\% credibility interval of $[855,1087]$~nT. If the most extreme Colaba disturbance value is excluded from the analysis, then the median maximum $-Dst = 866$~nT, with a 68\\% credibility interval of $[768, 977]$~nT. The widths of these intervals indicate that estimates of the occurrence frequency of Carrington-class storms are very uncertain, as are related estimates of risk for modern technological systems.","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Uncertain Intensity Estimate of the 1859 Carrington Storm\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey J. Love, E. Joshua Rigler, Hisashi Hayakawa, K. Mursula\",\"doi\":\"10.1051/swsc/2024015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A study is made of the intensity of the Carrington magnetic storm of September 1859 as inferred from visual measurements of horizontal-component geomagnetic disturbance made at the Colaba observatory in India. Using data from modern observatories, a lognormal statistical model of storm intensity is developed, to characterize the maximum-negative value of the storm-time disturbance index (maximum $-Dst$) versus geomagnetic disturbance recorded at low-latitude observatories during magnetic storms. With this model and a recently published presentation of the Colaba data, the most likely maximum $-Dst$ of the Carrington storm and its credibility interval are estimated. A related model is used to examine individual Colaba disturbance values reported for the Carrington storm. Results indicate that only about one in a million storms with maximum $-Dst$ like the Carrington storm would result in local disturbance greater than that reported from Colaba. This indicates that either the Colaba data were affected by magnetospheric-ionospheric current systems in addition to the ring current, or there might be something wrong with the Colaba data. If the most extreme Colaba disturbance value is included in the analysis, then, of all hypothetical storms generating the hourly average disturbance recorded at Colaba during the Carrington storm, the median maximum $-Dst = 964$~nT, with a 68\\\\% credibility interval of $[855,1087]$~nT. If the most extreme Colaba disturbance value is excluded from the analysis, then the median maximum $-Dst = 866$~nT, with a 68\\\\% credibility interval of $[768, 977]$~nT. The widths of these intervals indicate that estimates of the occurrence frequency of Carrington-class storms are very uncertain, as are related estimates of risk for modern technological systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"101\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2024015\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2024015","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据印度科拉巴观测站对水平分量地磁扰动的目测推断,对 1859 年 9 月卡灵顿磁暴的强度进行了研究。利用现代观测站的数据,建立了一个风暴强度对数正态统计模型,以描述磁暴期间低纬度观测站记录的风暴时扰动指数(最大值 $-Dst$)与地磁扰动的最大负值关系。利用该模型和最近发表的科拉巴数据,估计了卡灵顿风暴最可能的最大$-Dst$及其可信区间。一个相关的模型被用来检验卡灵顿风暴报告的各个科拉巴干扰值。结果表明,像卡林顿风暴这样具有最大 Dst 值的风暴只有百万分之一会导致局部扰动大于科拉巴报告的扰动值。这表明,要么科拉巴数据除环流外还受到磁层-电离层海流系统的影响,要么科拉巴数据可能有问题。如果将最极端的科拉巴扰动值纳入分析,那么在卡林顿风暴期间产生科拉巴记录的每小时平均扰动的所有假定风暴中,中位最大值$-Dst = 964$~nT,68%的可信区间为$[855,1087]$~nT。如果将最极端的科拉巴扰动值排除在分析之外,则最大 $-Dst = 866$~nT,可信度区间为 68%,即 $[768, 977]$~nT。这些区间的宽度表明,卡灵顿级风暴发生频率的估计值非常不确定,现代技术系统的相关风险估计值也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the Uncertain Intensity Estimate of the 1859 Carrington Storm
A study is made of the intensity of the Carrington magnetic storm of September 1859 as inferred from visual measurements of horizontal-component geomagnetic disturbance made at the Colaba observatory in India. Using data from modern observatories, a lognormal statistical model of storm intensity is developed, to characterize the maximum-negative value of the storm-time disturbance index (maximum $-Dst$) versus geomagnetic disturbance recorded at low-latitude observatories during magnetic storms. With this model and a recently published presentation of the Colaba data, the most likely maximum $-Dst$ of the Carrington storm and its credibility interval are estimated. A related model is used to examine individual Colaba disturbance values reported for the Carrington storm. Results indicate that only about one in a million storms with maximum $-Dst$ like the Carrington storm would result in local disturbance greater than that reported from Colaba. This indicates that either the Colaba data were affected by magnetospheric-ionospheric current systems in addition to the ring current, or there might be something wrong with the Colaba data. If the most extreme Colaba disturbance value is included in the analysis, then, of all hypothetical storms generating the hourly average disturbance recorded at Colaba during the Carrington storm, the median maximum $-Dst = 964$~nT, with a 68\% credibility interval of $[855,1087]$~nT. If the most extreme Colaba disturbance value is excluded from the analysis, then the median maximum $-Dst = 866$~nT, with a 68\% credibility interval of $[768, 977]$~nT. The widths of these intervals indicate that estimates of the occurrence frequency of Carrington-class storms are very uncertain, as are related estimates of risk for modern technological systems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信