2012, Vol 9, Issue 3

Volume 9, Issue 3, 2012
www.agu.org/journals/spaceweather
Career Recollections From
Joe Allen
Editorial: Telstar Anniversary Rem inds Us HowFar Space Weather Has Come News: NOAA Improves Space Weather Watch Products Technical: Improvements in Short-Term Forecasting of Geomagnetic Activity
Editorial
Telstar Anniversary Reminds Us How Far Space Weather Has Come
EDITOR Louis J. Lanzerotti, Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J. (ljl@adm.njit.edu) EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo. David H. Boteler, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Volker Bothmer, Institut fr Astrophysik, Gttingen, Germany Norma B. Crosby, Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy, Brussels, Belgium Genene M. Fisher, NOAA, Washington, DC. Barbara L. Giles, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. John G. Kappenman, Storm Analysis Consultants, Duluth, Minn. Ryuho Kataoka, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan Delores J. Knipp, NCAR, Boulder, Colo. Joseph E. Mazur, The Aerospace Corporation, Chantilly, Va. Robert P. McCoy, Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Va. Hermann J. Opgenoorth, Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden Robert M. Robinson, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Va. Howard J. Singer, NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center, Boulder, Colo. Phil Wilkinson, IPS Radio and Space Services, Haymarket, New South Wales, Australia MAGAZINE STAFF Manager, Journals Production Randy Townsend (rtownsend@agu.org) Editorial Services Manager Victoria Forlini (vforlini@agu.org) Editor Support Graciano Petersen (gpetersen@agu.org) Production Mary Bender (mbender@agu.org) Copy Editor Laura Cole (lcole@agu.org) Creative Services Manager Brian Kelm (bkelm@agu.org) Graphic Design and Layout Robbie Chester (rchester@agu.org) Travis Frazier (tfrazier@agu.org)
he 50th anniversary of the launch of the first active communications satellite, the Telstar satellite, was marked 10 July 2012. The successful operation of Telstar during its almost 6-month life registered several firsts, as emphasized by President John F. Kennedy in an announcement (http://m.youtube. com/watch?feature=plpp&v=lzPZoeOP CJ8) that also bore evidence of the central role played by the Cold War in U.S. foreign policy at the beginning of the space age. Although cosmic rays had been discovered about 50 years earlier and several theorists had discussed particle motion in the geomagnetic field, when John R. Pierce at Bell Laboratories proposed Telstar in 1954, he had little reason to believe that the environment around Earth was anything but benign. All prior perspectives of Earths space environment were revolutionized by James Van Allens discovery of stably trapped radiation in early 1958. Telstar was funded by the AT&T company and built by Bell Laboratories; AT&T reimbursed NASA for the launch costs. Telstar used the latest transistors (all discrete components!) and other components available at the time. In order to understand the possible effects of the newly discovered trapped radiation on the transistors, Telstar also flew with several solid-state detectors behind different entrance shields to separate electrons of different energies. At the 50th anniversary celebration at Alcatel-Lucent Bell Laboratories, the physicist responsible for these detectors, Walter Brown, presented some of his historical data showing the effects of space weather on the new (at the time) technology of communication satellites. Browns detectors did not measure the natural radiation: On the day prior to Telstars launch, the U.S. had conducted the Starfish Prime high-altitude (400 kilometer) nu-
clear test in the Pacific. This test not only produced an electromagnetic pulse that caused severe electrical grid disturbances in Hawaii but also injected electrons into the radiation belts at concentrations more than 100 times that of the natural environment. These electrons damaged Telstars transistors, resulting in subsystem shutdowns and final spacecraft failure in midFebruary 1963. The Starfish electron data obtained by Browns detectors are referenced to this day. These data provide unique information on electron lifetimes at low Earth altitudes and represent essentially the only existent data on the results of such a human-produced event. For the celebration, Bell Labs asked that I provide an overview of the effects of space weather on communications following Browns historical presentation. From the time of the first such effects on the electrical telegraph, to long cables, wireless, and communication satellites and navigation, Earths space weather environment continues to define design parameters for technologies as well as possible mitigation procedures against deleterious events. Telstars anniversary celebration provided an excellent opportunity to review how far knowledge has advanced in understanding space weather and to reflect on how critical knowledge of the space environment is for the successful design and implementation of modern technologies. Louis J. Lanzerotti is editor of Space Weather and a distinguished research professor of physics at the New Jersey Institute of Technology in Newark. He is retired from Lucent Technologies Bell Laboratories. E-mail: ljl@njit.edu.
Citation: Lanzerotti, L. J. (2012), Telstar anniversary reminds us how far space weather has come, Space Weather, 10, S08014, doi:10.1029/2012SW000837.
Space Weather Quarterly is a digest of selected articles published online in Space Weather: The International Journal of Research and Applications (http://www.agu. org/journals/spaceweather). Space Weather Quarterly (ISSN 1539-4964) is published quarterly by the American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20009, USA. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Member Service Center, 2000 Florida Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20009, USA. 2012 American Geophysical Union. Material in this issue may be photocopied by individual scientists and engineers for research or classroom use. For permission for any other use, contact the Editorial Office at spaceweather@agu.org. Advertising: Tel: +1-202-777-7536; E-mail: advertising@agu.org Change of address: Contact the Member Service Center 8:00 A.M. 6:00 P.M. Eastern time: Tel: +1-202-462-6900; +1-800-966-2481; Fax: +1-202-328-0566; E-mail: service@agu.org Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect official positions of the American Geophysical Union unless expressly stated.
Space Weather Quarterly Quarterly
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
CONTENTS
Feature Article
12 Revealing the Link Between Solar Activity and Satellite Anomalies: Career Recollections From Joe Allen
By Colin Schultz An exclusive interview with the former chief of the Solar and Terrestrial Physics Division of the National Geophysical Data Center.
Volume 9, Issue 3, 2012
Opinion: New Opportunities for a Historic Spacecraft

By Leonard Garcia, Robert Farquhar, and Timothy Eastman Plans are emerging and actions are being taken to reactivate the International Sun-Earth Explorer 3 and enable it to gather new scientific data.
Departments
2

Meeting Report: The Second Annual Space Weather Community Operations Workshop: Advancing Operations Into the Next Decade
By Jennifer Meehan, Jared Fulgham, and W. Kent Tobiska Second annual Space Weather Community Operations Workshop says "Don't Reinvent the Wheel." By Howard J. Singer Selected new articles on the topic of space weather from AGU journals.
Editorial: Telstar Anniversary Reminds Us How Far Space Weather Has Come
By LouisJ. Lanzerotti Our editor celebrates the historical significance of the first active communications satellite.
10 Editor's Choice

News: Space Weather Enterprise Forum Includes Broad Range of Discussion

By Randy Showstack Space weather catches the eyes of top government officials.
15 Meeting Report: Workshop Addresses Aviation Community

By Jennifer Meehan and Joseph Kunches The aviation industry is becoming more aware of the impacts that space weather can have on operations, communications, and navigation, as well as the issue of increased radiation exposure for passengers and flight crews on board.
News: National Space Weather Portal Is Online

By Genene Fisher and M. Bonadonna Federally funded space weather information, services, and activities are being linked through an authoritative, collaborative resource for national space weather scientific data and services.
16 Meeting Report: Florida Energy Assurance Plan

By Niescja E. Turner, William Murtagh, Kevin Guthrie, Katariina Nykyri, William A. Radasky, and Eric Senkowicz The nation's first statewide emergency preparedness training and exercises geared specifically to the aftermath of severe geomagnetic events were held in Florida.
News: Forecasting the Radiation Belts in Europe

By Richard B. Horne The opening of the first European system to forecast Earth's radiation belts provides a forecast of high-energy electrons and a risk index for the satellite operations and service industry.
18 Book Review: Delores Knipps Understanding Space Weather and the Physics Behind It
By Mark B. Moldwin Delores Knipp's textbook provides a comprehensive resource for space physicists teaching in a variety of academic departments to introduce space weather to advanced undergraduates.
News: NOAA Improves Space Weather Watch Products

By Joe Kunches and Rodney Viereck NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) is changing the way it characterizes geomagnetic storm activity.
Opinion: Charting a Path Toward Improved Space Weather Forecasting

By Anthony J. Mannucci Space weather products for end users are growing in sophistication and utility and are often accompanied by useful visual displays.
Technical Article
20 Improvements in Short-Term Forecasting of Geomagnetic Activity
By Ramkumar Bala and Patricia Reiff Real-time forecasting of geomagnetic activity improvements is discussed.
Cover design by Robbie Chester.
Space Weather Quarterly is cosponsored by the International Space Environment Service.

www.agu.org/journals/spaceweather Space Weather Quarterly 3
News
Space Weather Enterprise Forum Includes Broad Range of Discussion

With the 2013 solar maximum nearing, researchers and government agencies are focusing on how the increased solar activity could affect our increasingly technological society and what measures can be taken to help prevent or mitigate any threats to the electricity grid, GPS, and other potentially vulnerable technological soft spots. At the 2012 Space Weather Enterprise Forum, held 5 June in Washington, D. C., Tamara Dickinson, a senior policy analyst with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), stated that space weather is a serious matter that can affect human economies around the world. Dickinson said that there has been an increased awareness about space weather in the White House and that President Barack Obama recently requested briefing memos on the topic. Earlier this year, Obama directed OSTP and the national security staff to aggressively move forward with space weather mitigation efforts, she said. Dickinson added that because of concerns about the continued healthy operation of the Advanced Composition Explorer, the administration is readying the Deep Space Climate Observatory mission for launch in 2014 as a near-term risk reduction measure to provide space weather data. At the forum, Arthur Charo, senior program officer for the U.S. National Research Councils (NRC) Space Studies Board, previewed NRCs decadal survey for solar and space physics (which subsequently was released on 15 August). He said the survey, which was at that time in review prior to its release, takes a long-term look at the field, recommends top priority scientific goals and directions for the future, and also recommends programmatic directions and priorities for government investments. Charo said that when compared with its 2003 predecessor, the 2012 survey includes more emphasis on evaluating the technical maturity and probable costs of candidate reference missions as well an attempt to avoid having outdated cost estimates. Were really trying hard this time to produce an executable plan, Charo said. What we turn over to NASA and NOAA and [the National Science Foundation (NSF)] will actually be something that fits within the reasonable expectation for the future budget. Given the difficult current budget climate, he added that agencies will need to do more with less and learn how to maximize resources though international partnerships, missions of opportunity, and other measures. Looking at future budgets, you cant help but think that budgets will not support future needs, he noted. Charo added that space weather is a vibrant field and there has been remarkable progress in space weather research over the past decade. However, while some forum speakers called space weather a team sport that relies on many agencies working together, Charo expressed concern that U.S. federal agencies are still operating largely ad hoc vis--vis [transitioning] space weather research to [operation]. Researchers and government agency representatives also discussed advances related to space weather research at the Space Weather Enterprise Forum. Among the federal agency representatives, Charles Gay, deputy associate administrator of NASAs Science Mission Directorate, provided overviews of the agencys Heliophysics System Observatory, which consists of 17 operating missions. He noted new heliophysics missions planned for launch between 2012 and 2018, including the Radiation Belt Storm Probes, scheduled to launch 23 August, and the Solar Probe Plus, slated to launch in 2018, which will fly as close as 9.5 solar radii from the Sun. Other speakers, including agency representatives from NOAA and NSF, also discussed the outlook for space weather research. In addition, several speakers expressed concern about potential damage that could occur from a future space weather event that might conceivably be as large as the 1859 Carrington event (named for British astronomer Richard Carrington and the strongest geomagnetic storm on record) or from less powerful events. Even relatively small solar events can cause economic damage, according to forum speaker Karel Schrijver, senior fellow in solar and space science at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Companys Advanced Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif. Schrijver said that a study of 1216 reports of power grid disturbances between 1992 and 2010 found a pattern in disturbances following severe solar and geospace activity and that there could be several billion dollars in economic impact per year that have flown under the radar because in part we focus on extreme [space weather] events. For more information, see http://www.ofcm.noaa.gov/ swef/2012/index-swef2012.htm. Randy Showstack is a staff writer at AGU, Washington, D. C. E-mail: rshowstack@agu.org.
Citation: Showstack, R. (2012), Space weather enterprise forum includes broad range of discussion, Space Weather, 10, S08013, doi:10.1029/2012SW000845.
Space Weather Quarterly
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
National Space Weather Portal Is Online

Federally funded space weather information, services, and activities are now being linked through the National Space Weather Portal, an authoritative, collaborative resource for national space weather scientific data and services. Launched by the National Space Weather Program (NSWP), which focuses on coordinating interagency activities to advance our understanding and use of space weather data, the portal features studies and reports, NSWP strategic plans, and other documents that show the development of space weather science. The National Space Weather Portal is one of many activities that foster an increased awareness of federal space weather resources within the scientific and stakeholder communities as well as the general public. Specifically, the site is a valuable resource for the following: Products and services from authoritative space weather operational prediction centers and specialized service providers Research programs to further understanding of space weather and heliophysics research Satellite and ground-based infrastructure to aid in space weather research and operations Data discovery and tools, including virtual observatories to aid in space weather research Space weather education, training, and public outreach aimed at students, educators, and the general public Federal space weather programs that support the NSWP International organizations that further space weather research and forecasting The commercial space weather provider industry Key reports, studies, and policies Included in this comprehensive portal are important milestones in the history of the NSWP, including the original NSWP strategic plan published in 1995, the initial implementation plan from 1997, and the revised implementation plan updated in 2000. These documents helped set the course for the development of space weather support and services over the past 17 years. There is also an independent assessment of the NSWP, which found the program to be the catalyst for interagency cooperation and development of the United States space weather operational and research capability. The 2010 strategic plan is also included, and a science roadmap and implementation plan will be posted in the near future. These documents, along with the other contents of the portal, are indispensable assets for any aspect of the space weather enterprise that may interest the use. The NSWP was established in 1995 to provide coordination and oversight in support of space environmental forecasting, research, data acquisition, model development, technology transition, operations, education, and public outreach. It operates under the auspices of the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. This outstanding resource for data, information, and exploration of our national space weather capability can be accessed via http://www.spaceweather.gov/portal. Genene Fisher is the Senior Advisor for Space Weather, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1325 East West Highway, Room 14372, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, USA. Michael F. Bonadonna is the Executive Secretary for the National Space Weather Program, Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology, DC, 8455 Colesville Road, Suite 1500, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, USA. E-mail: michael. bonadonna@noaa.gov.
Citation: Fisher, G., and M. Bonadonna (2012), National Space Weather Portal is online, Space Weather, 10, S07006, doi:10.1029/2012SW000831.
Forecasting the Radiation Belts in Europe

Weather forecasting has expanded to space weather. As of 1 March 2012, satellite operators and the general public will be able to obtain forecasts of the Earths radiation belts, thanks to the SPACECAST project. The opening of the first European system to forecast Earths radiation belts, part of the SPACECAST project, is funded by the European Union Framework 7 Programme and provides a forecast of high-energy electrons up to 3 hours in advance (updated every hour), as well as a risk index for the satellite operations and service industry. The SPACECAST project is the result of a growing awareness in Europe, at the government level, that modern society has become dependent on high-technology systems susceptible to space weather. The U.S. National Research Council has estimated that if a Carrington-type storm occurred again, the economic impact from power blackouts and disruption to satellites and other services could be as high as $2 trillion [Space Studies Board, 2008]. In Europe the space industry is a key driver of economic growth, and European policy is to use space for the benefit of civilians. Programs based on this commitment include Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) and the Galileo radio navigation system. SPACECAST is one of several projects now funded by the European Union to help protect these space assets. Space weather has also gained a special significance in the UK. The volcanic ash cloud that disrupted transatlantic aviation in 2010 prompted a much wider evaluation of natural hazards.
Space Weather Quarterly 5
Following an inquiry by the House of Commons, space weather was put on the UK national risk register and is now a subject of ongoing research collaboration between the UK and the United States following President Obamas visit to the UK in May 2011 and Prime Minister David Camerons visit to the United States in March 2012. The SPACECAST project is an international effort. Led by the British Antarctic Survey, the project includes scientific research and collaboration between eight groups in Europe and four in the United States. Data are collected from satellites and groundbased instruments in real time and combined with a forecast of geomagnetic activity from Sweden to drive two forecasting models, one in France and one in the UK. The forecast results are displayed on a Web site hosted in Belgium. This distributed system enables a much higher level of reliability than a singlepoint system. A key feature of the SPACECAST forecasts is that they include geostationary and medium Earth orbits together with the slot region in the radiation belts where many new satellites are planned to operate. One of the advantages of the SPACECAST system is that it uses physics-based models. Research using data from satellites and ground-based experiments in Antarctica has long shown that wave-particle interactions can either increase or decrease the radiation belts under different geomagnetic activity levels and must be included with particle transport across the magnetic field.
These wave-particle interactions are included in the SPACECAST forecasting models and are vital for enabling better forecasting. The models can also be used to reconstruct the space radiation environment after a satellite anomaly has occurred. Over the next 2 years the SPACECAST project will exploit a new database of very low frequency waves to improve high-energy (MeV) electron forecasts and will develop models for lower-energy (keV) electrons that cause satellite surface charging. The project will also use solar wind, MHD, and shock acceleration models to simulate solar energetic particle events in order to better understand and eventually forecast solar energetic particle events in the future. Details about SPACECAST are available at http://www.fp7spacecast.eu. Reference
Space Studies Board (2008), Severe Space Weather Events Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts, Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, D. C. [Available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook. php?record_id=12507&page=1].
Richard B. Horne is an individual merit scientist at British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK. E-mail: r.horne@bas.ac.uk.
Citation: Horne, R. B. (2012), Forecasting the radiation belts in Europe, Space Weather, 10, S08006, doi:10.1029/2012SW000808.
NOAA Improves Space Weather Watch Products

Recognizing that space weather events are now being closely monitored by governments and industries as well as by space weather scientists, NOAAs Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) is changing the way it characterizes geomagnetic storm activity. Its watch products are now based on the geomagnetic storm scale, or G scale, one of three NOAA space weather scales. These scales use a five-level system to indicate the severity of both observed and predicted geomagnetic activity. The NOAA scales have become increasingly popular with users since their inception during solar cycle 23. The scales have a common range and can be tailored to suit the individual needs of users from varying sectors. Geomagnetic storm watches are issued when there is increased likelihood of a disruptive event. Some airlines, for example, have adopted the G3 geomagnetic storm category as a threshold at which they will take action on polar routes, i.e., change the flight plan to ensure that satellite communications are maintained throughout the flight. To improve its customer support, SWPC is moving away from the use of the A index, instead using the more straightforward G scale for warnings of geomagnetic activity. This change became official on 25 July 2012. Among the potentially confusing aspects of the A index are the existence of various renditions ( Ap, ABou, etc.) and the fact that it is a 24 hour index. In general, the A index describes the excursion of the geomagnetic field vector from a quiet day at a particular location, multiplied by a constant, which can vary by location. For example, at Boulder the constant is 2 nanoteslas, so A = 20 would translate as a 40 nanotesla departure from the normal day, in round numbers. This scale with its various constant multipliers presents problems for customers trying to develop vital plans for dealing with the ill effects of geomagnetic storms. The G scale is based on the 3 hour geomagnetic planetary index, Kp. The new watches will be issued for each of the five levels of the G scale and will be consistent with the old A-based watches in terms of the severity of the pending disturbance. Users who have subscribed to the A-based watches do not need to take action. For example, a user who has previously requested notification when A > 20 is expected will now receive an alert whenever a G1 level disturbance is forecast. SWPC recognizes that there is still room for improvement. The new G scale provides warnings when at least one 3 hour period in a given day is forecast to have activity within a certain G scale category. The warnings will not specify at what time the activity is likely to occur within that day. The G scale also does not indicate if there will be multiple periods of activity at that threshold. SWPC continues to work with customers to improve on the vernacular of the space weather science community and the
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
accuracy and reliability of space weather forecasts. The goal is to develop the tools and measures necessary to communicate warnings that are actionable and valuable for all applications and customers of this NOAA service. To learn more, see the list of watch products at http:// www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/AlertsTable.html. NOAA Space Weather Scales are available at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ NOAAscales/.
Joe Kunches is a space scientist at Space Weather Prediction Center, NOAA. E-mail: joseph.kunches@noaa.gov. Rodney Viereck is the director of the Space Weather Prediction Testbed at Space Weather Prediction Center, NOAA.
Citation: Kunches, J., and R. Viereck (2012), NOAA improves space weather watch products, Space Weather, 10, S08007, doi:10.1029/2012SW000838.
Opinion
Charting a Path Toward Improved Space Weather Forecasting

Space weather forecasting is still in its infancy, but there have been enormous advances in the past 15 years. First-principles and physics-based models are now assimilating data, providing forecasts and nowcasts of space weather conditions surrounding Earth. Space weather products for end users are growing in sophistication and utility and are often accompanied by useful visual displays [Simpson, 2004]. Several sources of space weather forecasts exist today, including research products and operational forecasts from civilian and Department of Defense sources. As the space weather community works toward a comprehensive Sun-to-mud forecasting capability, it is natural to expect challenging initial steps, similar to what occurred in terrestrial forecasting more than 50 years ago [Siscoe, 2006]. This should not deter the implementation of first-principles-based forecasting for the upper atmosphere, magnetosphere, and ground-induced currents, augmented by data-driven methods where appropriate. Consider, for example, forecasting upper atmosphere disruptions following detection of a coronal mass ejection (CME) near the Sun. The community should seize the moment to establish an ambitious program of forecasting that takes advantage of the lead time available (usually 13 days) after a CME has been first detected. Forecasting geomagnetic storms due to high-speed streams is likely less challenging, with potentially longer lead times. The progress made so far has come from transitioning research models into operational environments. As the community works to expand capabilities, it is time to ask whether transition to operations is the appropriate paradigm for advancing the field. Once a research model has been transitioned, what are the next steps? Successful implementation of a space weather forecasting capability requires a vibrant research community focused on improving forecasts. Such a community will, of course, help transition models [Tobiska, 2009; Araujo-Pradere, 2009], but it will also continue to develop and improve those models that have already been transitioned. New scientific insights and tools will be developed in the process. In terrestrial weather, the research divisions of the operational centers produce reanalyses that are variants of the operational models run in postprocessing to produce long-term consistent estimates of the atmospheric state. These reanalyses have found widespread use in scientific investigations of the atmosphere, demonstrating that activities related to operations can benefit pure research. The operational models all began as research codes, but their use in applied research brings new benefits. Positive feedback from operations to research is not surprising since models are often used to gain scientific insights. Now is a critical time to exercise vision and plan for an era when space weather forecasting undergoes continuous refinement and improvement, providing both operational benefits and new scientific advances. The implementation of a more comprehensive forecasting capability should begin immediately, with the idea of improving forecasts as new scientific knowledge is gained and as operational results are assessed by a broad community. Improving forecasts is an ongoing challenge, requiring enhanced physical understanding as represented in the models, data-driven techniques where needed, and effective observational systems. Advancements in forecasting require both the dedicated involvement of the scientific community and the existence of an applied research community. To achieve this, a stable but evolving forecasting infrastructure, accessible to the broader scientific community, is required. Such an infrastructure can serve as a focal point for model development and expanded observational systems. The space science community should give serious thought to how we will transition from an era of first implementation to an era of continuous improvement. So much has been accomplished. Let us start preparing today for the next great frontier in space weather research. Acknowledgments The author wishes to acknowledge Attila Komjathy for a careful reading of this opinion. This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with NASA.
References
Araujo-Pradere, E. A. (2009), Transitioning space weather models into operations: The basic building blocks, Space Weather, 7, S10006, doi:10.1029/2009SW000524. Siscoe, G. (2006), A culture of improving forecasts: Lessons from meteorology, Space Weather, 4, S01003, doi:10.1029/2005SW000178. Simpson, S. (2004), U.S. Air Force predicts space weather impacts on technological systems, Space Weather, 2, S12002, doi:10.1029/2004SW000108. Tobiska, W. K. (2009), Operational space weather entering a new era, Space Weather, 7, S10003, doi:10.1029/2009SW000510.
Anthony J. Mannucci is supervisor of the Ionospheric and Atmospheric Remote Sensing Group at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., USA. E-mail: tony.mannucci@jpl.nasa.gov.
Citation: Mannucci, A. J. (2012), Charting a path toward improved space weather forecasting, Space Weather, 10, S07003, doi:10.1029/2012SW000819.
New Opportunities for a historic spacecraft

data acquisition. Once these commands are rebuilt, the Deep On 10 August 2014, an extraordinary spacecraft will return to Space Network will be used to communicate with the spacecraft Earth after having been away for 30 years. Plans are emerging and determine instrument health. Demonstrating that we can and actions are being taken to reactivate the International Suncommunicate with the spacecraft and that it is sufficiently healthy Earth Explorer 3 (ISEE 3, later renamed the International Cometary is a crucial step toward a new mission Explorer (ICE)) and enable it to gather in 2014. new scientific data. On what new adventures do we send The NASAEuropean Space our venerable explorer? One option is Agency ISEE pioneered the multipoint that it could return to the L1 halo orbit. approach to studying solar-terrestrial Much more is known about space connections. ISEE 1 and ISEE 2 weather now than was known 30 were launched in 1977, and ISEE years ago. Even so, multipoint space 3 was launched in 1978. These weather monitoring and research are spacecraft were designed to explore more important than ever, and this the relationship between the incoming spacecraft is an exceptional candidate solar wind (sampled by ISEE 3) and to serve as a space weather monitor Earths magnetosphere (sampled by pro viding complementary and costISEE 1 and ISEE 2). effective measurements of the solar ISEE 3 is notable for many space wind. firsts. It was the first spacecraft in a However, ISEE 3/ICE can serve halo orbit around the Sun-Earth L1 many more purposes. Controlling this libration point. Later, it became the first Figure 1. The return of ISEE 3/ICE in 2014 is an comparatively simple spacecraft, now spacecraft to intercept a comet when, opportunity to broaden scientific understanding well beyond warranty, would be an after being renamed ICE, it was sent using data collected via this historic spacecraft. ideal training opportunity for young to comet Giacobini-Zinner in 1985. It can also serve to educate a new generation of scientists and engineers. A single PC, After a distant encounter with Halleys scientists and engineers. for example, could support the entire comet in 1986, ISEE 3/ICE continued ground system, a prime example of NASAs ability to do more on its heliocentric orbit. In August 2014, this trajectory will bring with less. the spacecraft on a close approach with Earth and will provide an For more information on ISEE 3, see http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa. opportunity to return it to active service. gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1978-079A. The spacecraft carries 13 plasma, high-energy particle, field, and wave sensors, most of which were still functional as of 1999. Leonard Garcia and Timothy Eastman are research scientists The current health of these instruments needs to be evaluated, working for Wyle Information Systems at NASA Goddard Space but a test in 2008 confirmed ISEE 3/ICEs location and clearly Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. E-mail: leonard.n.garcia@nasa.gov. detected the spacecraft carrier signal. The spacecraft has Robert Farquhar is Executive for Space Exploration at KinetX, sufficient fuel (approximately 150 meters per second of change in Inc., Tempe, Ariz. velocity (V) capability) to send it back to L1. Much of the documentation from the initial mission programming Citation: Garcia, L., R. Farquhar, and T. Eastman (2012), New opportunities for a Historic Spacecraft, Space Weather, 10, S08008, was lost, but members of the original team are now working on doi:10.1029/2012SW000832. rebuilding the commands necessary for spacecraft control and
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
Meeting Report
The Second Annual Space Weather Community Operations Workshop: Advancing Operations Into the Next Decade
How can we continue to advance the space weather operational community from lessons already learned when it comes to data reliability, maintainability, accessibility, dependability, safety, and quality? How can we make space weather more easily accessible to each other and outside users? Representatives from operational, commercial, academic, and government organizations weighed in on these important questions at the second annual Space Weather Community Operations Workshop, held 2223 March 2012 in Park City, Utah, with the unofficial workshop motto being "Dont Reinvent the Wheel." The workshop, hosted by the Space Weather Center (SWC) at Utah State University (USU), had an objective of building on preexisting distributed space weather networks. W. Kent Tobiska, director of USU SWC, introduced this objective by pointing to the operations-level information exchange already occurring between 11 organizations: NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC); NASA Community Coordinated Modeling Center; Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics; Atmospheric and Environmental Research; Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomic Research; Exploration Physics International; Rice Space Institute; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); Space Environment Center; Space Environment Technologies; and the event host, USU SWC. The workshop brought together two dozen core commercial, agency, and university space weather operational personnel to promote a robust data exchange capacity within the space weather enterprise. This data exchange focuses on sharing common operational problems and solutions as well as working toward developing best practices that will eventually become standards for space weather operations. Each participant discussed mission assurance best practices in terms of reliability, maintainability, accessibility, dependability, safety, and quality. For example, recommendations for reliability best practices would be to maintain redundancy by creating several channels for data access making systems more reliable by allowing data customers multiple access points and relieving strain on systems. Unreliable source data are detrimental to space weather products when downstream users are unable to ingest data. Looking at maintainability, simple practices such as consistent, intuitive file-naming conventions; maintainable software; documentation (e.g., user guides and test plans); and attention to other best practices in software development are vital. Structural and descriptive metadata are key players in accessibility. Following the simple outline of Who, What, Where, When, Why, How, and Whose is recommended for creating and developing meaningful metadata that will benefit the end user. Dependability of data and systems becomes a main focus for data producers and maintainers. The direct access servers (non-Web) such as the External Space Weather Data Store used by NOAA SWPC and Earthworm used by USGS are examples of different systems used to bolster dependability of data access for users. Finally, safety and quality of products and data can be tested against several different challenges, including Geospace Environment Modeling (GEM) Metrics, Coupling, Energetics, and Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions (CEDAR) Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI), GEM-CEDAR (Dst), and Solar Heliosphere and Interplanetary Environment (SHINE) program (see http://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/support/CETI2010/). Quality products will help improve the safety of the same products, fostering a community perception of trustworthy space weather data providers. Topics of coronal mass ejection forecasts and ensemble modeling, high-latitude energy inputs, and products and services were discussed in breakout sessions. These sessions generated ideas for creating accessible data distribution systems, ensuring reliability in operational data systems, building dependable data networks, establishing and implementing operational space weather best practices, and developing maintainable operational systems. The 2012 workshop concluded with action items for improving common space weather operations. The success of the first Space Weather Community Operations Workshop in 2011 led to sponsorship of the second workshop by the American Commercial Space Weather Association, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, American Meteorological Society, and USU SWC. For continued collaboration on standards and discussion of lessons learned throughout the past year, an organizing committee was formed to hold a 2013 workshop with an objective of developing a best practices document. A primary goal in preparation for the 2013 workshop will be to attract more space weather professionals from wide-ranging groups, such as the Air Force Weather Agency and international partnerships, to further develop these relationships and technologies. For the full 2012 workshop report, please visit http://goo.gl/cppYj. Jennifer Meehan is a graduate research assistant at USU SWC. E-mail: jinni.meehan@gmail.com. Jared Fulgham is the coordinator of programs II at USU SWC. W. Kent Tobiska is the director of USU SWC.
Citation: Meehan, J., J. Fulgham, and W. K. Tobiska (2012), The second annual Space Weather Community Operations Workshop: Advancing operations into the next decade, Space Weather, 10, S07005, doi:10.1029/2012SW000817.
Editor's Choice
by Howard J. Singer
Selected new articles on the topic of space weather from AGU journals
Effectiveness of Models in Predicting the Arrival of Coronal Mass Ejections

On reaching Earth, coronal mass ejections (CMEs) can produce the largest geomagnetic storms that sometimes have severe consequences for systems such as power grids and communications technologies. Advanced warning of these storms is critical, and the Wang-Sheeley-Arge Enlil model, which predicts the arrival time of a CME at Earth, is operational at NOAAs Space Weather Prediction Center. However, even after a model has become operational, the work is far from over. There is a constant need for model validation and improvement and for research comparing the capabilities of existing operational models with new models or techniques. Xie et al. [2012] have taken on this challenge by comparing two methods for predicting interplanetary shock arrival time: the physics-based Enlil model and a prediction based on kilometric type II radio bursts observed by NASAs Wind satellite. The radio signals observed by Wind are produced in the solar wind at the local electron plasma frequency (dependent on electron density) when electrons are accelerated by passing shock waves. With a good solar wind density model, a time history of the frequency of the waves can reveal the location of the shock wave as it travels toward Earth. For the event that they studied in detail, Xie et al. found that the Enlil model predicted the shock evolution and time of arrival with an error of about 1 hour. The research also found that the Enlil model has the potential to improve the solar wind density model for use with the radio burst technique. Xie, H., D. Odstrcil, L. Mays, O. C. St. Cyr, N. Gopalswamy, and H. Cremades (2012), Understanding shock dynamics in the inner heliosphere with modeling and Type II radio data: The 2010-04-03 event, J. Geophys. Res., 117, A04105, doi:10.1029/2011JA017304.
A schematic of a corotating high-speed solar wind stream emanating from a coronal hole. The interaction between the high-speed stream and the upstream slow speed stream forms a corotating interaction region, or CIR. CIRs that encounter Earth can cause enhanced geomagnetic activity. The schematic is from B. Tsurutani et al. (Corotating solar wind streams and recurrent geomagnetic activity: A review, J. Geophys. Res., 111, A07S01, doi:10.1029/2005JA011273, 2006).
The Underestimated Effects of Solar Minimum Space Weather
A perspective view of the 3 April 2010 CME is modeled (overlaid wireframe yellow curves) with images from three satellites. The center image, is looking directly toward the Sun from an instrument on the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, and the side images are from the NASA Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory satellites, STEREO A and B, ahead of and behind Earth in approximately Earth's orbit around the Sun.
Space weather at solar minimum is sometimes ignored, but the paper by Denton and Borovsky [2012] serves as an example and reminder that space weather occurs throughout the 11-year solar cycle and that even during solar minimum there can be serious effects on technological systems. While solar maximum is characterized by an increase in the number of sunspots and is associated with features such as an increase in the frequency of solar flares, solar minimum and the declining phase of the solar cycle are associated with an increase in cosmic ray intensity and an increase in recurrent high-speed solar wind streams. When the high-speed streams run into the slower solar wind, corotating interaction regions form at the interface and, on reaching Earth, cause enhanced geomagnetic activity. Denton and Borovsky compare and contrast strong and weak high-speed streams and their subsequent effects on various regions and aspects of Earths magnetosphere, including Earths radiation belts. They apply their results to examine high-speed stream effects on spacecraft charging in geosynchronous orbit. This work helps to quantify the level of spacecraft charging in relation to the strength and duration of a high-speed stream. Denton, M. H., and J. E. Borovsky (2012), Magnetosphere response to high-speed solar wind streams: A comparison of weak and strong driving and the importance of extended periods of fast solar wind, J. Geophys. Res., 117, A00L05, doi:10.1029/2011JA017124.
H. Xie
10
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
AGU
Current Research
Space Weather articles published online
Improving Long-Term IonosphereThermosphere Forecasting

A vast array of military and civilian operations and systems are dependent on accurate specifications and forecasts of ionospheric conditions. As discussed by Schunk et al. [2012], these include high-frequency communications, over-the-horizon radars, GPS navigation systems, electric power grids, ocean drilling operations, and more. Fortunately for these systems, there have already been many improvements in model capabilities to specify global ionospheric conditions and provide guidance for near-term forecasts, especially through data assimilation techniques such as those used by the Utah State University Global Assimilation of Ionosphere Measurement (GAIM) model. Looking beyond model specifications, Schunk et al. elaborate on the existing difficulties in achieving longterm ionosphere-thermosphere forecasting stemming from uncertain parameters and processes, missing physics, and the challenge of coupling models that are needed to capture the full chain of events from the Sun to the ionosphere. Using examples, the authors identify topics where further research can lead to model improvement. Schunk, R. W., L. Gardner, L. Scherliess, and L. Zhu (2012), Problems associated with uncertain parameters and missing physics for long-term ionosphere-thermosphere forecasting, Radio Sci., 47, RS0L23, doi:10.1029/2011RS004911.
Sreeja, V., M. Aquino, Z. G. Elmas, and B. Forte (2012), Correlation analysis between ionospheric scintillation levels and receiver tracking performance, Space Weather, 10, S06005, doi:10.1029/2012SW000769. -------Crown, M. D. (2012), Validation of the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center's solar flare forecasting look-up table and forecaster-issued probabilities, Space Weather, 10, S06006, doi:10.1029/2011SW000760. -------Podladchikova, T. V., and A. A. Petrukovich (2012), Extended geomagnetic storm forecast ahead of available solar wind measurements, Space Weather, 10, S07001, doi:10.1029/2012SW000786. -------Solomentsev, D. V., B. V. Khattatov, M. V. Codrescu, A. A. Titov, V. Yudin, and V. U. Khattatov (2012), Ionosphere state and parameter estimation using the Ensemble Square Root Filter and the global three-dimensional first-principle model, Space Weather, 10, S07004, doi:10.1029/2012SW000777. -------Nos, M., et al. (2012), Wp index: A new substorm index derived from high-resolution geomagnetic field data at low latitude, Space Weather, 10, S08002, doi:10.1029/2012SW000785. -------Godinez, H. C., and J. Koller (2012), Localized adaptive inflation in ensemble data assimilation for a radiation belt model, Space Weather, 10, S08001, doi:10.1029/2012SW000767. -------Prikryl, P., P. T. Jayachandran, S. C. Mushini, and I. G. Richardson (2012), Toward the probabilistic forecasting of high-latitude GPS phase scintillation, Space Weather, 10, S08005, doi:10.1029/2012SW000800. -------Negrea, C., M. V. Codrescu, and T. J. Fuller-Rowell (2012), On the validation effort of the Coupled Thermosphere Ionosphere Plasmasphere Electrodynamics model, Space Weather, 10, S08010, doi:10.1029/2012SW000818. -------Torta, J. M., L. Serrano, J. R. Regu, A. M. Snchez, and E. Roldn (2012), Geomagnetically induced currents in a power grid of northeastern Spain, Space Weather, 10, S06002, doi:10.1029/2012SW000793.
US Navy
A Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar station is dependent on accurate specifications and forecasts of ionospheric conditions.
^
Full texts of these and other recent AGU journal articles on space weather subjects are available to Space Weather online subscribers under the Technical Articles section. New articles are added every month.
REVEALING THE LINK BETWEEN SOLAR ACTIVITY & SATELLITE ANOMALIES:

Career Recollections From Joe Allen
eginning his career on the heels of the 19571958 International Geophysical Year and the dawn of the satellite era, Joe H. Allen entered the service of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1963. Earning a masters of science in engineering from the University of California at Berkeley while working for the Geodetic Survey, Allen advanced within a department that evolved into the National Geophysical Data Center, a branch of NOAA. Allen earned a Department of Commerce award in 1978 and in 1981 became the chief of the Solar and Terrestrial Physics Division of the National Geophysical Data Center, a position from which he retired in 1994.
12
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
Although he considers his practical development of the auroral electrojet (AE) indexa global measure of auroral activity his greatest achievement, Allen's record keeping and enthusiasm for free-flowing information were likely equally as important because of the growth role they played in understanding the relationship between satellites and solar activity. Despite occasional early bouts of ridicule from skeptical researchers or stonewalling by industry representatives, he initiated an ongoing list of satellite anomalies through his connections with academics, industry operators, and military personnel. In this interview, Space Weather Quarterly talks with Allen about his satellite anomaly list, his Cold War dealings with the U.S.S.R., and how he almost coined the phrase space weather. Q: By your count, how common is it for satellites to be affected by solar activity? A: I think its probably even more common than we know. I think there are more anomalies that occur than we learn about if were not on the inside of a company operating arrays of satellites. When I gave my first paper about satellite anomalies and magnetic storms, at an AGU meeting in Washington, D. C., in 1973, an engineer from the aerospace industry came up to me after my talk and said, Joe, what you were talking about is really well known in the industry. Its just that no one talks about it in public. Its too sensitive a topic. That being said, I think there are some solid reasons why its not possible to come up with a simple count. Satellite anomalies are not as simple as an on-off light switch. One can be totally bad, the satellite could be fried and its lost from that point on. That doesnt happen very often. What happens most is that something turns on when it should have stayed off, or it stays off when it should have turned on. Sometimes an anomaly switches off a circuit and a ground command resets it. This can happen over and over multiple times, and onboard conditions keep turning it off after each reset. Yet, I consider this to be just one anomaly event. Q: What was the first clue that led you to suspect a link between satellite anomalies and solar activity? A: The first clue for me was the match between anomalies on Department of Defense communications satellites and the region of the eastward auroral electrojet. I was part of NOAA where solar activity records and magnetic indices are kept, on the inside, so to speak. In August 1972 there was a tremendously big proton storm with high-energy protons streaming from the Sun, one that NASA began calling the anomalously large proton event, as if there might not be another. That was when my results from deriving the AE index for 1970 showed that strong currents which predominantly flowed in the midnight to dawn sector of the ionosphere connected to currents at geostationary satellite altitude. A location plot of DCS satellite anomalies was brought to Boulder by a graduate student visiting from Boeing and the University of California at Los
Angeles. He was trying to find out what he could about the reason for problems with Boeings DCS satellites. He showed me his map, one of those clockface diagrams showing where the geostationary communication satellites were in orbit when they experienced problems. I said, Oh, Ive seen something like that before, and I pulled out my own clockface map, a Northern Hemisphere map of the Earth with a rotating auroral region I had pinned on top of it. His anomaly map was roughly the same size as mine, so we overlaid them, and the majority of his satellite anomalies were happening exactly in the sector where the extreme westward auroral electrojet ionospheric currents were flowing. We knew those currents connected to a current ring out in the magnetosphere at geostationary altitude, where the satellites were flying, so we knew that they had to be related to each other. That was when I really began to link what I had been doing in magnetic activity indices with the world of satellite anomalies. Q: You came across the link between satellite anomalies and solar activity in the early 1970s. Did the broad scientific community sign on to your idea right away? A: Oh, no, they certainly didnt, not even within NOAA. Some of the engineers liked to poke fun at me in meetings, saying, Oh, Joe Allen is gonna tell us now what the Suns been doing that makes it important. On one of those occasions, I shuffled a stack of Vugraphsthis was before the PowerPoint days and I put two sets of events up on the screen showing the crowd when two GOES satellites, NOAAs geostationary orbiting weather satellites, had failed and half a dozen to a dozen other satellites had experienced outages and serious operating problems and said, Here are those things you think you dont need to take into account because theyre happening way off on the Sun. That was a very satisfying opportunity for me. I think the topic is well enough recognized now; its out there and most people accept it exists. On the other hand, engineers have also been very successful in redesigning equipment, building in redundancy, and coping with problems. This causes what had been a problem to not be a problem again, and they can begin to think, Weve got this solved. In 1985 there was a meeting in Los Alamos to which I had been invited to talk about magnetic storms and satellite anomalies. When I finished my talk, an Air Force captain from the weapons laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said, Mr. Allen, everything youve talked about is surface charging effects on satellites, and we solved those problems five years ago. A little fellow, short, grey headed, brush cutKelley Spearman from Aerospace Corporationjumped up and said, Young man, youre not cleared to a high enough level to know that youve just lost a couple of communication satellites to surface charging, because they had redesigned the specifications downwards. He said, The colonel that accepted lower radiation specs on the hardening of the chips should be stood against the wall and shot. Surface charging is killing your satel-
www.agu.org/journals/spaceweather www.agu.org/journals/spaceweather
Space Weather Quarterly 13 Space Weather Quarterly 13
lites. That was the most effective squelch Ive ever heard at a meeting. Q: Since then youve been building your satellite anomaly list, with information from friends within aerospace corporations, research labs, and the military. Its a project that is built on personal connections. How would the project be carried on if you quit? A: You mean if I keeled over? Oh yeah. In some ways, the satellite anomaly field is self-sustaining. But when people retire or rotate out on new assignments, someone new will come in who has to be introduced to the topic anew. There are a lot of people working on it, although Im a little disappointed that not more of an overt public effort is being made. One of the best probes in space if your satellite is having a problem is if there was another satellite nearby. If it had a problem or didnt have a problem, then that told you something useful about yours. So, having as full a list of anomalies as possible is very important. One thing I should say, though, is that I never have released a university name, a private name, or a military name of anyone who provided me with information. For this to work you have to build a position of trust. Others who now maintain such lists keep to this position. Q: There was an interesting occurrence that happened at a 1985 meeting you hosted in Boulder, Colorado, wasnt there? A: At the close of the meeting, I was giving my concluding talk. All of the forecast center people in Boulder had come to that meeting, along with a lot of the aerospace contractors, the military people, and all the people with whom Id been exchanging satellite anomaly information. I asked them, What would you all like to see happen that hasnt been around before? They were talking about identifying this, identifying that, determining what the hazard or the risk would be, and I said, So what you really want is for the forecast center to be in the business of describing space weather. And they said, Yeah, thats it! Well, later on I thought Id coined the phrase space weather, but Murray Dryer from the forecast center said he had a prior claim to it. We were friends and we talked about it, and he convinced me that he and some others had come up with the term space weather before Id spontaneously said it at that 1985 meeting. I actually resisted the term at first. I tried to make the phrase space climate popular, but it never really caught on. Q: Was solar terrestrial physics research always well supported by the aerospace industry and the government? A: When Ronald Reagan became president, one of the first things he did was sign an executive order to cut budgets across the board by a certain percent, and NOAA decided that they would eliminate solar-terrestrial physics from our data center. We sent out a letter to people all over the world, and one congressman who contacted me told me that he had gotten questions from three different secretaries of major corporations on the same day. Their bosses wanted to know why the government was going to do this foolish thing. An admiral who was in
command of the Naval Research Laboratory sent a question to the Secretary of Commerce wanting to know where he would have to go to get his information in the future if he couldnt get it from us; would he have to go ask for it from Russia? Some of the very high ranking members of the military have been very supportive of us, but it was because we were able to give them what they needed. If that continues, then I think the support will continue to be there. Q: The early stages of your career took place during the Cold War. How did this affect your work? A: I benefited from my boss Alan Shapleys good relations within Russia. He was one of the earliest government civilians to travel to Russia, even during the Cold War, in connection with the International Geophysical Year. Well, when I came along, Alan told me that he didnt worry about me interacting with Russians, or Japanese, or anyone. Just, he said, try to be useful. Cooperate with them as much as you can. If you need me to back you up any time, Ill do it. I took him at his word, and so I began to build up my relations. Some of the Russians who first came to visit me in Boulder came because of the auroral electrojet magnetic activity index work. They were very friendly, though we would occasionally argue about politics. One time, when I was attending a committee meeting in Moscow, one of them gave me a list of instruments that had been launched on a new satellite and said, Put this very deeply within your papers, its classified now. But then, of course, the weather forecast in Moscow was classified. Later, I asked one of my Russian friends, Am I likely to get into trouble for carrying all these satellite images and data out of Russia? He said I was a guest of the Academy of Sciences and I would never be bothered. Sure enough, I got back to the U.S. and gave the list to my boss, and we had queries from the intelligence community and the military. About 3 months later my 15 minutes of fame disappeared when the people from Russia who had given me this paper attended a meeting in Boulder and released that same information to the world. So, the satellite information that I had smuggled back was all of a sudden publicly available. Things like this went on all the time. After a few sweaty palm events early on I finally just took the attitude that if they wanted to get me in trouble they could do it without me having done anything. So, I thought, Ill just go ahead and do what I planned to do or got asked to do. And what happened was that we had some of the strongest positive relationships possible. Colin Schultz is a freelance science writer for AGU. E-mail: schultz.writer@gmail.com.
Citation: Schultz, C. (2012), Revealing the link between solar activity and satellite anomalies: Career recollections from Joe Allen, Space Weather, 10, S08012, doi:10.1029/2012SW000839.
14
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
Meeting Report
Workshop Addresses Aviation Community

Delta Airlines had an unprecedented experience in 2011: For the first time, one of its flights was rerouted because of space weather activity. Flight 189 from Detroit, Mich., to Beijing, China, had to reroute due to solar activity that occurred 2428 September 2011. Over the last decade most airlines that fly routes across the North Pole region have had diversions as a result of solar activity. As cross-polar air traffic increases, standing at 10,993 oneway crossings in 2011, the aviation industry is becoming more aware of the impacts that space weather can have on operations, communications, and navigation, as well as the issue of increased radiation exposure for passengers and flight crew on board. With the aim of determining what aviation users need from the space weather community and what service providers can do, a 1-day aviation workshop was held in conjunction with NOAAs Space Weather Workshop. The 23 April workshop brought together aviation industry representatives including pilots, dispatchers, union representatives, and regulators, as well as space weather forecasters and scientists from the government, academic, and private sectors. The workshop was organized into three sessions: (1) what aviation users need, (2) what can be done by service providers, and (3) looking ahead. These focused sessions, outlined here, represent the first steps taken toward answering how space weather observations and forecasts can be better integrated into aviation operations. Needs of Aviation Users Radiation exposure monitors are not currently required on aircraft anywhere in the world, but several speakers in this session identified the importance of such monitors. To utilize this type of technology to its fullest potential, it is important for everyone in the industry to understand how solar activity relates to the aviation operating environment. Mike Stills of United Airlines suggested that space weather information be communicated to dispatchers in a manner emphasizing applicability, readability, and dispatcher comprehension. Session attendees also agreed that space weather needs to be included in daily weather briefings, but such information cannot be conveyed without the proper education and training. Genene Fisher from the National Weather Service suggested that education is essential at all levels: dispatchers, air traffic control, pilots, crew and passengers, space tourists, management, etc. This raises two questions: How does each airline educate its employees about space weather, and can the scientific community provide tailored education material for aviation companies? United, American, and Delta Airlines already include space weather in briefings for polar flights. A suggestion was made that the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) add a stoplight product for aviation (red indicating that the environment is highly disturbed, yellow indicating that the environment is slightly disturbed, and green indicating that no disruptions are expected) and consider including a new H (high-energy) scale for radiation, based on readings of >100 MeV protons from the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite. Also, if a radiation event begins while a plane is airborne, there needs to be a way to alert the pilot and define an ideal flying altitude appropriate to the situation. Service Providers The second session worked to formulate operations concepts and aviation needs. These included a forecast for the Global Navigation Satellite System, the ability to better assess radiation exposure, and space weather impacts on high-frequency and very high frequency communications. Christopher Mertens from NASA noted that there is currently a Web interface customized for pilots: the Nowcast of Atmospheric Ionizing Radiation for Aviation Safety model (http://sol.spacenvironment.net/~nairas/), which provides real-time predicted radiation dose rates from physics-based models. It is important that the information provided by the service providers be delivered in a format easily interpreted by the end users, for example, as a simple color-coded map (see Figure 1). Looking Ahead The workshop concluded with a discussion on how to move forward with providing space weather services to the aviation community. A key recommendation was that the space weather
Figure 1. NASAs NAIRAS model predictions during March 2012 solar storm events. Shown is the effective dose rate (E, in microsverdrups per hour) at an altitude of 11 kilometers for 7 March 2012 from 14:00 to 15:00 GMT with the maximum rate of 36.85 and the average rate being 8.58. Credit: Christopher Mertens, NASA.
community, government, academia, and private industry must provide more actionable and easily understood products allowing for an appropriate response to given solar-terrestrial occurrences. Participants agreed that there must be harmony across all airlines and NextGen and SESAR (envisioned air traffic navigation schemes) in the event of space weather activity. The importance of receiving and supplying consistent information, ignoring media hype, and getting to the facts was stressed, a lesson learned from the April 2010 Icelandic volcanic ash event. Ultimately, broadening NOAA SWPC space weather services and increasing awareness of and education about space weathers implications for Earth will lead to an improved response by airlines, limiting disruptions to aviation operations. Jennifer Meehan is a graduate research assistant at the Utah State University Space Weather Center. Email: jinni.meehan@ gmail.com. Joseph Kunches is a space scientist at the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center.
Citation: Meehan, J., and J. Kunches (2012), Workshop addresses aviation community, Space Weather, 10, S08011, doi:10.1029/2012SW000828.
Florida Energy Assurance Plan

Statewide Workshop and Exercises This spring, Florida held the nations first statewide emergency preparedness training and exercises geared specifically to the aftermath of severe geomagnetic events. Funded by the State of Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) via a Department of Energy grant and held in collaboration with Watch House International, Inquesta Corporation, and the Florida Institute of Technology, the 1719 April 2012 workshop had 99 on-site attendees in an oceanfront hotel in Melbourne, Florida, as well as 16 over live Web streaming. The workshop was the capstone to a three-month season of 21 regional space weather training sessions and workshops serving 386 attendees in total. Participants included emergency managers, law enforcement officers, emergency medicine practitioners, and private industry stakeholders, including representatives from utility and telecommunications companies. The three-day statewide workshop began with one day of education and targeted training, featuring space weather experts in government, academia, and private companies, as well as the regional utility grid reliability organization. The following two days were devoted to a tabletop exercise where participants, divided into groups by area of responsibility, worked through an evolving scenario of space weatherrelated events, running through their preparedness plans and examining responses. Why Florida? According to William Bryan, deputy assistant secretary for infrastructure security and energy restoration in the U.S. Department of Energy, who opened the event, Florida has been and remains a leader in emergency preparedness. Florida emergency managers already train for hurricanes every year, but this space weather exercise provided training for geomagnetic events and more generally helped strategize for issues of longer and more widespread power outages and the related communication, law enforcement, and health difficulties that could result. Regional Workshops Prior to the statewide event, the seven emergency management regions of Florida were each given three smallerscale training opportunities, including a webcast with an instructional movie about space weather; a short webcast presentation by Niescja Turner, a professor of physics and space sciences at the Florida Institute of Technology; and an on-site workshop with a tabletop exercise. Each session was planned as an independent event, so participants could attend any or all regional or statewide events. Education Component The Florida workshop was unlike traditional emergency preparedness workshops in that a full day of instruction preceded the tabletop exercise. During the education day, participants heard talks by experts on the science, operations,
16
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
and power grid vulnerabilities associated with space weather. Niescja Turner gave a presentation about the science of magnetic storms, space weather, and radiation-related phenomena. She discussed the precursors and the development of space weather phenomena, including solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and their subsequent effects on Earth (Figure 1). Turner went over the possible consequences of geomagnetic disturbances and addressed some misconceptions, such as conflating a magnetic storm with, for example, an electromagnetic pulse. Operational issues and warning systems were addressed by Bill Murtagh, program coordinator at the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC). Murtagh discussed the NOAA space weather scales and advised the participants, particularly those in emergency management, on which SWPC alerts would be most helpful to them. He also provided guidance on the suite of alert systems and information available online. Bill Radasky, president of Metatech Corporation, spoke about Metatechs extensive modeling of geomagnetically induced currents and simulated effects on the nations power grid. He was followed by Eric Senkowicz, director of operations for the Florida Reliability Figure 1: In the Sunshine State, emergency managers considered the effects of space weather on critical Coordinating Council, a regional infrastructure. Courtesy of NASA. entity of North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). Tabletop Exercises Senkowicz discussed the findings and recommendations set One and a half days were devoted to tabletop exercises for forth in the latest NERC report on geomagnetic events. He the participants. Attendees were given an evolving scenario presented some details specific to Floridas power grid, inof a G5 magnetic storm and related effects. The scenario, cluding the locations of high-voltage lines and why Floridas facilitated by master exercise practitioner Kevin Guthrie, was grid may not be affected as much due to its southerly loone of a double storm, where one event follows closely on cation. Together, these talks gave the emergency managers the heels of another. In the scenario, Florida initially respondsome perspective about power grid vulnerabilities and the ed to its own troubles with power and communications and uncertainties surrounding the effects of geomagnetically inlater prepared to act as a host to people from the northeast duced currents on the grid. who, faced with the prospect of an extended electricity outThe education day concluded with a panel discussion feaage (perhaps lasting for months), temporarily relocated to turing the days speakers along with Charlie Craig, emergency Florida because of its speed in restoring electrical power. manager for Volusia County, and Katariina Nykyri, a professor The exercises, while using a severe geomagnetic storm as of physical sciences at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University the catalyst, were intended as an opportunity for Floridas in Daytona Beach. emergency managers to critically examine their plans and
procedures to deal with a widespread energy and communication blackout. Given the interdependencies of necessary infrastructure, the exercise portion continually led participants into areas they had not initially considered. Looking Forward To follow up on lessons learned from the workshop, the FDEM is producing both an after-action report and an improvement plan for statewide operations. Local emergency managers operate independently from the state and can reevaluate emergency preparedness plans if they choose, and many expressed an interest in doing so. Acknowledgments This program was funded through the State of Florida Division of Emergency Management via an Energy Assurance grant from the Department of Energy. The authors acknowledge Mike McElroy of FDEM and thank Watch House International, a certified small business specializing in all facets of emergency management.
Niescja E. Turner is a professor in the Physics and Space Sciences Department, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Fla. (E-mail: neturner@fit.edu) William Murtagh is the program coordinator at Space Weather Prediction Center, NOAA, Boulder, Colo. Kevin Guthrie is the emergency management expert at Watch House International, Ozark, Mo. Katariina Nykyri is a professor in the Physical Sciences Department, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, Fla. William A. Radasky is president of Metatech Corporation, Goleta, Calif. Eric Senkowicz is the director of operations for the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council, a regional entity of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Tampa, Fla.
Citation: Turner, N. E., W. Murtagh, K. Guthrie, K. Nykyri, W. A. Radasky, and E. Senkowicz (2012), Florida energy assurance plan, Space Weather, 10, S08015, doi:10.1029/2012SW000834.
Book Review
Delores Knipps Understanding Space Weather and the Physics Behind It

Delores Knipps textbook, Understanding Space Weather and the Physics Behind It, provides a comprehensive resource for space physicists teaching in a variety of academic departments to introduce space weather to advanced undergraduates. The book benefits from Knipps extensive experience teaching introductory and advanced undergraduate physics courses at the U.S. Air Force Academy. The fundamental physics concepts are clearly explained and are connected directly to the space physics concepts being discussed. To expand upon the relevant basic physics, current research areas and new observations are highlighted, with many of the chapters including contributions from a number of leading space physicists. The textbook is written in the style of university physics texts, such as Halliday et al. [2005], in that each chapter is filled with color diagrams, photos, callouts, and sidebars that contain brief digressions on real-life examples of the concepts being discussed, worked problem examples, and Pause for Inquiry questions that help students assess their understanding. Space physics, as we know, is the field of space science that studies the structure and dynamics of the Suns atmosphere and its interaction with everything inside the solar system (from planetary atmospheres and magnetospheres to asteroids, comets, and dust) as well as its interaction with the local interstellar medium. The Suns supersonically flowing magnetized solar wind carves out a bubble in the local interstellar medium called the heliosphere. Understanding the physical processes important for the heliosphere requires knowledge of plasma physics, a field that is often not taught at the undergraduate level. With our increasing reliance on space technology, global communication and navigation systems, and continental-scale power grids, we now realize that the Sun significantly influences the Earths space environment, with societal and technological implications. Because of all of these factors, space weather has emerged from the field of space physics as an independent area of study. The goal of the textbook is extremely ambitious, and the scope of topics covered is comprehensive. Each chapter begins with a list of concepts that students should already understand and a list of concepts discussed in the text. At the end of each chapter is a list of keywords and equations that were introduced, answers to the Pause for Inquiry questions posed throughout the chapter, and references and suggestions for further reading. Although students are expected to have studied calculus, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electricity and magnetism, the text provides background on all of the undergraduate-level physics pertaining to space weather concepts. The textbook is clearly designed for advanced undergraduates in that much of the fundamental physics is reviewed as opposed to being assumed knowledge. In addition, many of the fundamental plasma physics topics normally included in graduate textbooks are introduced but are not fully developed or derived. For example, in the chapter that introduces the solar wind structure, an outline of Eugene Parkers theory is presented, but instead of doing the full derivation of the solar wind structure (as is often done in graduate space physics texts), the path to the solution is provided by a flow chart diagram with the final results (such as the class of solutions of the solar wind velocity for different temperatures as a function of radial distance from the Sun) given as figures. This deliberate target of advanced undergraduate students and the books organization for that
18
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
audience clearly distinguish Understanding Space Weather from other hybrid audience advanced-undergraduate- and beginninggraduate-level introductory space physics textbooks. The textbook's three sections are presented in a logical order. The first section describes the structure and physics of the space environment, including the quiescent Sun; the solar wind; and Earths magnetosphere, ionosphere, and atmosphere. Along the way, the important concepts of radiation, electric and magnetic fields, and plasma physics are introduced specifically as they pertain to the space environment. The second section examines the dynamics of the space environment, from solar storms to geomagnetic storms. The third section explores how these space weather storms directly affect society and technology. Essentially all of the technological space weather impacts are described in detail, including ramifications for space electronics, satellites, ground systems, radio communication, and navigation, as well as airline crews and astronauts. The encyclopedic, 14-chapter textbook is clearly a labor of love and is a wonderful addition to the space physics library. However, the work is designed to be taught in one 15-week semester, but with more than 700 pages, 560 keywords, and 200 Pause for Inquiry questions, it is a significant task for an undergraduate student to read, understand deeply the concepts, and take full advantage of the pedagogical sections in the text. Working through the Pause for Inquiry problems and reading the text carefully took this reviewer 3 to 4 hours per chapter. From education research on how undergraduate students use introductory physics textbooks [e.g., Podolefsky and Finkelstein, 2006] it is known that a majority of students do not read the textbook unless they are required to submit reading exercises, and most skip over sidebars, text boxes, and inquiry questions [e.g., Benbassett et al., 2008] unless these features are emphasized by the instructor. The textbook also suffers from a lack of end-of-chapter problem sets. Despite the density of the text, this textbook is the most comprehensive and well-written advanced undergraduate introduction to space physics on the market and provides the opportunity to introduce space physics at the undergraduate level using the relevance and importance of space weather to engage and excite the next generation of scientists and engineers. I highly recommend it. References
Benbassett, D., T. R. Underwood, B. P. Bailey, C. Albright, and B. J. Caldwell (2008), Empirical and perceived utility of textboxes, Coll. Stud. J., 42(3), 939944. Halliday, D., R. Resnick, and J. Walker (2005), Fundamentals of Physics, 7th ed., John Wiley, Hoboken, N. J. Podolefsky, N., and N. Finkelstein (2006), The perceived value of college physics textbooks: Students and instructors may not see eye to eye, Phys. Teach., 44(6), 338342.
Now Available for iPad

Download the FREE Space Weather Quarterly iPad app in the iTunes Newsstand.
012_345
Present at Exploration Station 2012!

Exploration Station is a free AGU event at Fall Meeting where scientists interact with and teach the public about Earth and space science. Visit education.agu.org/educationactivities-at-agu-meetings/ to read more about Exploration Station. Contact Bethany Adamec at bhadamec@agu.org for information about presenting.
Mark B. Moldwin is Professor of Space Sciences in the Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences at the University of Michigan. E-mail: mmoldwin@umich.edu.
Citation: Moldwin, M. (2012), Book review: Delores Knipps Understanding Space Weather and the Physics Behind It, Space Weather, 10, S08004, doi:10.1029/2012SW000823.
012-303
SPACE WEATHER, VOL. 10, S06001, doi:10.1029/2012SW000779, 2012
Improvements in short-term forecasting of geomagnetic activity

Ramkumar Bala1 and Patricia Reiff1
Received 15 February 2012; revised 5 April 2012; accepted 16 April 2012; published 6 June 2012.
[1] We have improved our space weather forecasting algorithms to now predict Dst and AE in addition to Kp for up to 6 h of forecast times. These predictions can be accessed in real time at http://mms.rice. edu/realtime/forecast.html. In addition, in the event of an ongoing or imminent activity, e-mail alerts based on key discriminator levels have been going out to our subscribers since October 2003. The neural networkbased algorithms utilize ACE data to generate full 1, 3, and 6 h ahead predictions of these indices from the Boyle index, an empirical approximation that estimates the Earths polar cap potential using solar wind parameters. Our models yield correlation coefficients of over 0.88, 0.86, and 0.83 for 1 h predictions of Kp, Dst, and AE, respectively, and 0.86, 0.84, and 0.80 when predicting the same but 3 h ahead. Our 6 h ahead predictions, however, have slightly higher uncertainties. Furthermore, the paper also tests other solar wind functionsthe Newell driver, the Borovsky control function, and adding solar wind pressure term to the Boyle indexfor their ability to predict geomagnetic activity.
Citation: Bala, R., and P. Reiff (2012), Improvements in short-term forecasting of geomagnetic activity, Space Weather, 10, S06001, doi:10.1029/2012SW000779.
1. Introduction
[2] This paper summarizes our efforts at the Rice Space Institute to provide short- and long-term forecasts of geomagnetic activity, namely Kp, Dst, and AE, to provide a faster alert system than the official nowcasts from the Space Weather Prediction Center at NOAA. This is an extension in forecast time and in predicted parameters from our previous paper [Bala et al., 2009, hereinafter paper 1]. We use solar windmagnetosphere coupling functions, which represent the dayside merging rates in terms of solar wind parameters, as basis functions to train an artificial neural network (ANN). Several studies in the past [e.g., Kamide et al., 1998; Papitashvili et al., 2000; Newell et al., 2007] have underscored the benefits of applying this concept of coupling functions to space weather, making them good candidates to describe the state of the magnetosphere system over a wide variety of magnetospheric activity (e.g., Dst, AE, Kp, Auroral Power, Polar cap size, b2i, AL, etc.). 2 [3] The Boyle index (BI), FkV 104 kmv =sec B 11:7 nT sin3 q=2, is an empirically derived scalar function that approximates the steady state polar cap potential
Department of Physics and Astronomy, William Marsh Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA. Corresponding author: R. Bala, Department of Physics and Astronomy, William Marsh Rice University, 6100 Main St., Houston, TX 77005, USA. (ramkumar@rice.edu) Copyright 2012 by the American Geophysical Union
1
(PCP), where v is the solar wind velocity in km/sec, B is the magnitude of the IMF in nanoteslas, and q is the clock angle [Boyle et al., 1997]. PCP is one of the fundamental measures of the coupling rate between the solar wind and the Earths magnetosphere. Thus, although the BI was derived only to predict the PCP, it is reasonable to use it as a possible coupling function to forecast other measures of geomagnetic activity (e.g., Kp, the ring current Dst index, and the auroral electrojet index AE) because geomagnetic indices can be modeled using solar wind derivatives. [4] Our models to predict the Kp index from the BI using ANNs have been discussed previously in paper 1. In this work, besides providing an updated version of our Kp models, we are also introducing new models that can predict Dst and AE. Part of the job of a space weather forecaster is to aid the process of decision making during critical times and to make the available space weather information more useful. In order to achieve this goal, one would want to forecast for different lead times. Here, we choose to forecast with 1, 3, and 6 h lead times. The purpose of a 1 h ahead prediction is to provide a short-term warning to certain end users for whom such a warning can be of benefit; for example, satellite operators, electrical transmission line companies. In addition, the effectiveness of the BI in raising the baseline further in short-term geomagnetic activity index forecasting is investigated and whether legitimate forecasting is plausible beyond lead times of over 3 h, perhaps up to 6 h. A 6 h predicted Kp, Dst, and AE will be regarded as a new baseline for further
1 of 11
S06001
20
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
S06001
BALA AND REIFF: SHORT-TERM FORECASTING OF Kp, Dst, AND AE
S06001
studies since most of the best estimates available in the literature are delivered for the next 2 to 4 h from the predicted time. [5] For this purpose, we have developed fully automated time predictive algorithms using ANNs with prediction capabilities for moderate (e.g., 40 nT < Dst < 80 nT) to severe storms (e.g., Dst < 120 nT, Kp > 6) in near real time. We have trained ANNs that take only solar wind and magnetospheric data from ACE to forecast in 3 different modes: (1) 1 h ahead, (2) 3 h ahead, and (3) 6 h ahead. For example, at time 0307 UT, the solar wind data up to 0300 UT become available and, mode 1 predicts the expected hourly values of Kp, Dst, and AE for 03000359 UT; mode 2 for 05000559 UT for Dst and AE and for 0300 0559 UT for Kp; and mode 3 for 06000859 UT as 3 h averages of Kp, Dst, and AE.
2. Data and Training

[6] The BIs and the geomagnetic indices used to train the ANNs comes from the archived data from the OMNIWeb (http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/ow.html), of the SPDF at Goddard Space Flight Center. The data range used in this study covers 19982009 for a complete solar cycle and is low resolution that has been time shifted to provide at Earth measurements of 1 h averages. With copious data available for this study (> 100,000 points), a good approach to building a steady neural network is to judiciously stratify the data into three smaller but distinct samples, one for training, one for testing the error and the other for validating the model. Testing set is used exclusively during the network learning procedure to prevent the network from over or under fitting the data. Validation data are used to evaluate models and are not part of either the training or the testing set. In this study, data covering January 1998 to March 2001, May 2001 to December 2005, and January 2008 to December2009 were chosen for training (49% as 1 h and 59% as 3 h averages) and testing (31% as 1 h and 22% as 3 h averages), while the data from April 2001 and from January 2006 to December 2007 were used only for validating the models. [7] The architecture and training techniques follows paper 1. In this work, however, inputs to the network follows a simple rule that the most recent value of the solar wind input receives the maximum weight (w) of unity, the second most recent value receiving 0.9 (0 < w < 1) of the previous, and so on (wn, n = 0, 1, 2, .). This procedure is an arbitrary choice, and the rationale behind this scheme of weighting the inputs is based on the assumption that the most recent solar wind values contribute the most to the predicted results. The network training algorithm, however, will internally adjust the final weighting of the terms.
3. The BI and Space Weather

[8] The BI was launched into real-time mode in October 2003, purely for a scientific and educational motive. It is
available from http://mms.rice.edu/realtime/forecast.html as a courtesy of the Rice Space Institute and the NASA MMS mission. Since its inception, the subscribers to the spacalrt mailing list receive e-mail notices whenever the 10 min BI average exceeds 200 kV, called red alerts. In over 8 years of real-time operations, it has enjoyed a lot of success and no major storm (Kp > 6) has been missed, which demonstrates its value as a forecasting tool. In conjunction with the BI (asymptotic polar cap potential) real-time plot, the two Kp prediction models discussed in paper 1 (1 and 3 h BI only) have culminated into real-time space weather forecast systems already; we have been running these two purely solar winddriven models since October 2007 with good success. [9] The BI is an actual predictor of the polar cap potential only if the steady state conditions prevail in the IMF for at least 4 h, whereas this whole study is based on 1 and 3 h averages of the BI. However, by setting up a nonlinear neuron model through ANNs, we can capture the effects of nonsteady states in the solar wind by weighting timeintegrated BI values over time, i.e., looking back several hours into the past. This is particularly useful to study the effects of short-term versus extended drivers, which tend to be nonlinear. To be a more accurate predictor of the polar cap potential during strong events, one should add a saturation term to the BI, since the observed potential typically saturates during times of strong solar wind activity [Hairston et al., 2003; Siscoe et al., 2002]. However, our findings indicate that the full BI (without a saturation term) is an excellent predictor of Kp, Dst, and AE in both moderate and severe conditions; therefore, although the polar cap potential saturates, the magnetospheric response does not. This could be vital for an operational setup, setting limits and thresholds for alerts, etc. This study and paper 1 are unique in that they are the first ANN prediction models to use only a single input (a coupling function) or, at the most, two inputs of the solar wind functions. These claims and the details of our ANN predictions will be discussed later in the paper. [10] Our efforts earlier at the Rice Space Institute is outlined in Figure 1. It illustrates actual forecast results published in near real time using the previous version of the models. As the new solar cycle 24, which started in December 2008, started to ramp up, it threw a surprise on 22 July 2009 when the 1 h BI (Figure 1, first panel) almost reached 200 kV for 2 full hours and the corresponding 3 h BI exceeded 160 kV. The success of our 1 h model predictions is shown in Figure 1 (fourth panel) as white histograms against black histograms, which represents the measured 1 h Kp oversampled over the same interval. The overall statistics of the 1 h model for the time interval shown in Figure 1 are r = 0.859, RMS error = 0.81. Correspondingly, the activity was also predicted well by our 3 h BI model (depicted in the second and third panels). While the second panel compares the model 2 predictions against the NOAA/SWPC nowcast Kp (r = 0.836 and RMS error = 0.768 overall), the third panel compares the official Kps against our model predictions (r = 0.842 and RMS
2 of 11
S06001
S06001
to predict AE through ANNs include Gleisner and Lundstedt [2001], Gavrishchaka and Ganguli [2001], and, more recently, Pallocchia et al. [2008]. A computationally optimized nonlinear dynamical model of the magnetosphere-ionosphere system called the WINDMI [Horton et al., 2005] has been used to evaluate geomagnetic storms that have also focused on the prediction of the westward auroral electrojets (AL) and Dst indices.
5. Prediction Algorithms
[13] The Kp, Dst, and AE indices respond on varying time scales for a given set of solar wind parameters. The BI can be used to characterize the magnetospheric activity over these three distinct ground-based geomagnetic indices [e.g., Bala et al., 2009; Balasubramanian, 2010]. In order to obtain the best predictions, we sought out to find the optimum look back time for the best predictive power; i.e., how much of the solar wind history is needed in order to obtain the best prediction. The illustration shown in Figure 2 is a test of ANN sensitivity as a function of time or the number of hours of inputs. It shows that the correlation with the AE index does not improve with additional hours of look back time, thus it is more a directly driven activity index. In contrast, however, the Kp and Dst predictions improve significantly with the addition of 6 or more hours of previous time history of solar wind input.
Figure 1. Results of our BI-only model Kp predictions from an activity (22 July 2009).
error = 0.843 overall). The most critical aspect of any prediction algorithm lies in its ability to predict the timing of the onset. In this case the onset of the activity, demonstrated by DKp = +3, and the resulting high Kps (>4), were both well predicted by the network approximately 3 h ahead. [11] The NOAA/SWPC derives 3 h planetary Kp index in near real time (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/ kp_3d.html) using data from ground-based magnetometers, 5 sites in the USA and an observatory each located in UK and France. They report their final real time and best estimates of Kp at the end of the prescribed 3 h interval (00000300, 03000600,), thus providing a significant improvement for space weather forecasting over the monthly official releases. However, the limitation is that these are low-resolution Kp, approximated to the nearest integer values (0, 1, , 9).
4. Related Work
[12] Several algorithms have been developed to nowcast Kp [e.g., Takahashi et al., 2001] and forecast Kp, Dst, and AE [e.g., Costello, 1997; Takalo and Timonen, 1997; Gleisner and Lundstedt, 1997; Boberg et al., 2000; Wing et al., 2005]. The ANN-based Wing et al. [2005] APL models have been deployed by the NOAA to take ACE data and generate Kp every 15 min with an early warning of up to 4 h in advance. Lundstedt and Wintoft [1994] and Wu and Lundstedt [1997] have performed early work to train ANNs to come up with predictions of the Dst index. Lindsay et al. [1999] were able to model Dst using solar wind monitors aboard different spacecraft inside 1 AU. Furthermore, Boaghe et al. [2001] came up with a Dst forecast model based on a nonlinear technique (NARMAX). Temerin and Li [2002, 2006] provided a new model for the Dst based on the solar wind parameters through rigorous empirical studies. Algorithms
Figure 2. ANN sensitivity test, the correlation coefficient as a function of number of hours of past observations included in the training. For the Kp and Dst, the number of inputs with extended time history enhances the network performance before saturating around six or seven inputs. However, for the AE, the function asymptotes almost immediately; i.e., it is best predicted by just a few previous hours of IMF data.
3 of 11
22
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
S06001
S06001
Figure 3. The 1 h and 3 h predictions from BI-only models compared with observed data for 1418 December 2006. Dst here is compared with pressure-corrected Kyoto Dst data. [14] A few common metrics to be used here to compare models are the linear correlation coefficient, RMSE (rootmean-square error) and ARE (average relative error). The RMSE and ARE are given by
v u N u1 X RMSE t jmodelt observedt j2 ; N t1 ARE
N 1X jmodelt observedt j ; jmodelt j N t1
Figure 4. The 1 h and 3 h predictions from BI-only models compared with observed data for 1014 April 2001. Dst here is compared with pressure-corrected Kyoto Dst data.
the epoch in question while t 1, t + 1 means 1 h behind and 1 h ahead of t, respectively. Kpt+1 and Kpt+3 are the forecasted values, and each BIt, BIt1, BIt8 etc. are hourly averages or 3 h averages of the BI (denoted by BI t3 BI t6, ..), as the case may be; given that official Kps are 3 h averages, data granularity of an hour is obtained by oversampling. [16] To demonstrate more, we also evaluated our models retrospectively at two other magnetically active times (Dst < 120 nT). The second panels of Figures 3 and 4 show how the Kp models performed during the December 2006 and April 2001 storms, respectively, with the corresponding BI in the top panel. In both the cases, 1 h Kps (r = 0.873 and 0.899) were slightly better predicted than 3 h Kps (r = 0.870 and 0.776). The overall validation results are shown in Table 1. We can notice that using the BI as a the solar wind driver, the 1 h model (r = 0.854; RMSE = 0.681) performs better than the 3 h model (r = 0.812; RMSE = 0.764). The ARE for the Kp index is set at 4 to emphasize moderate levels of activity. The last column in Table 1 shows the significance of correlation
Table 1. Prediction Summary of the ANN-Based Models Using Only the Boyle Indexa
Forecast Model: Using the BI Kpt+1: 1 h Kp predictor Kpt+3: 3 h Kp predictor Kpt+6: 6 h Kp predictor Dstt+1: 1 h Dst predictor Dstt+3: 3 h Dst predictor Dstt+6: 6 h Dst predictor AEt+1: 1 h AE predictor AEt+3: 3 h AE predictor AEt+6: 6 h AE predictor
a b
where observedt is the actual desired value and modelt is the model output. N is the total number of samples. As a note, the RMSE is also used for neural network optimization to track the time evolution of the network training error computed at the end of each epoch before the weights are updated. While the models are not evaluated based on the RMSE error alone, it is enough to use the RMSE for initial network diagnostics and pruning, i.e., to monitor learning histories as a function of time.
5.1. Kp Prediction [15] In paper 1, the models were based on network trained on data set selected from 19972005. In this paper, with the inclusion of 2 more years of data (2008 and 2009) in the training set, we have the advantage of modeling one of the deepest solar minima; the past solar cycle 23 minimum was abnormally low in terms of activity level and long in duration [Antia and Basu, 2010]. As we continued to make improvements to our models with more data available for training and testing, the new best functions to predict the Kp index are given by the following: Kpt+1 f(BIt, BIt1, .., BIt8 and Kpt+3 f(BI t ; BI t3 ; ; BI t21 ), where t represents
rb 0.854 0.812 0.687 0.855 0.833 0.777 0.828 0.782 0.621
RMSE 0.681 0.764 0.947 8.836 nT 9.61 nT 11.09 nT 95.38 nT 96.74 nT 121.18 nT
AREc 0.212 0.265 0.367 0.283 0.289 0.370 0.298 0.344 0.499
t Test < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% <0.1%
The results cover data from April 2001, 2006, and 2007. Here r is the linear correlation coefficient. c Thresholds for the ARE: Kp > 4, Dst < 40 nT, and AE > 500 nT.
4 of 11
S06001
S06001
Figure 5. Cross-correlation function of BI versus 1*Dst and AE are shown here using the raw untrained data. While the Dst tends to drop off rather slowly, the AE decays rapidly, making it harder for the prediction algorithms to predict over 2 h ahead.
coefficients demonstrated using statistical t tests as was done in paper 1, and clearly they are significant to below 1% probability level. Given the number of points in the distribution (>18000 for 1 h model and >6000 in the case of 3 h model), the tests eliminate any random correlations for the data presented for validation. [17] As our need for modern satellite systems and telecommunications continues to grow, space weather effects on these technologies can be mitigated with good shortterm predictions. Galactic cosmic rays, solar energetic particles, trapped high-energy particles are some possible causes for spacecraft malfunctions blamed on space weather [Baker, 2000]. Spacecraft anomalies and satellite failures have been reported due to high levels of geomagnetic activity as measured by global indices like the Kp [e.g., Spence et al., 1993; Choi et al., 2011]. Interestingly, such anomalies are not found to have just happened during solar maxima or during higher sunspot activities alone as Choi et al. [2011] point out in their work using reports from 95 GEO (Geostationary Earth Orbit) satellite anomalies. Our modified Kp prediction models can provide timely warning to operators of geostationary satellites such as those used for television broadcasting and terrestrial weather and up to 3 full hours ahead. The events shown in Figures 1, 3, and 4 demonstrate our capacity to model the activities at both extremes of solar cycle (April 2001, December 2006, and July 2009).
latitudes [Russell, 2000]. Since the measured fields are often influenced by other current systems existing in the magnetosphere [Burton et al., 1975], e.g., magnetopause currents and tail currents, it is customary to apply corrections to the Dst by removing their contributions. In this paper, a formal correction to the Dst index was applied using the BMR [Burton p et al., 1975] algorithm, where Dstcorrected = Dst b Psw + c; b = 16 nT(nPa)1/2 and c = 20 nT. While various values for b and c were given by different authors over the years, disagreements tend to exist over their precise values. Here, we will use the BMR values if the index stays below 150 nT and the OBrien and McPherron [2000] values (b = 7.26 and c = 11) otherwise. Therefore, since our models are corrected for pressure already, they do not model the sudden impulse. [19] After training our network, the best predicting functions for Dst can be written as: Dstt+1; t+3 f(BIt, BIt1, .., BIt9). Table 1 shows the overall validation results of the Dst 1 h (r = 0.855; RMSE = 8.836 nT) and 3 h models (r = 0.833; RMSE = 9.61 nT). Again, we refer to Figure 3 (r = 0.938 for 1 h Dst) and Figure 4 (r = 0.939 for 1 h Dst) for the two special cases. Our predictions in Figure 3 are in fair agreement with the observed Dst. However, in the case of the April 2001 storm, we note a good agreement in time history and recovery but a discrepancy in the magnitude between the largest predicted and observed values in Figure 4. In Figure 5, we plot the correlation of BI versus Dst and AE (1*Dst instead of Dst is preferred for easy comparison). We observe that Dst has an extended response (recovery phase in the third panels of Figures 3 and 4 exemplifies this fact) but AE has a short-term response to solar wind input. [20] Presently, the 1 h Dst index is released every hour by the World Data Center C2 for Geomagnetism, Kyoto, Japan and as provisional and final values. The US Geological Survey provides a near-real-time 1 m Dst index, using data from either four or three observatories from Honolulu, San Juan, Kakioka, and Hermanus, based on time domain and frequency space technique described in Gannon and Love [2011]. Our models offer true predictions of Dst index before the nowcast data become formally available.
5.2. Dst Prediction [18] The Dst index, developed by Sugiura [1964], calculated using four ground based magnetic field measurements near the equator, measures the energy in the ring current as the average depression of the horizontal component of the magnetic field around the Earth at low
5.3. The AE Index [21] The auroral electrojet AE indices, introduced by Davis and Sugiura [1966], are used to characterize the global electrojet activity in the auroral zone and are derived from 1 min averages of northward H component traces of a series of ground-based magnetometers. The AE index is somewhat similar to the Dst index in terms of their availability. Reported by the World Data Center C2 for Geomagnetism, Kyoto, Japan every hour as hourly averages, it is derived based on the number of stations that are currently reporting at a given point of time, and as more information becomes available for use they are updated periodically. [22] The following forms define the best functions describing our BI-AE relationship: AEt+1; t+3 f(BIt, BIt1, .., BIt9). The AE models share the same construction as the Kp and Dst models. The model summary is listed in
5 of 11
24
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
S06001
S06001
Table 2. Prediction Summary of the ANN-Based Kp Models Using the Boyle Index and Dynamic Pressure, the Newell Function, and Borovsky Functiona
Kp Forecast Model BI and Dp: Kpt+1 Newell function: Kpt+1 Borovsky function: Kpt+1 BI and Dp: Kpt+3 Newell function: Kpt+3 Borovsky function: Kpt+3 BI and Dp: Kpt+6 Newell function: Kpt+6 Borovsky function: Kpt+6
a b
rb 0.881 0.884 0.842 0.862 0.863 0.801 0.758 0.755 0.710
RMSE 0.619 0.615 0.703 0.668 0.659 0.780 0.851 0.861 0.915
AREc 0.181 0.167 0.210 0.211 0.203 0.263 0.297 0.294 0.340
t Test < < < < < < < < < 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
The results cover data from April 2001, 2006, and 2007. Here r is the linear correlation coefficient. c Thresholds for the ARE: Kp > 4, Dst < 40 nT, and AE > 500 nT.
Table 1 (r = 0.828 for 1 h and r = 0.782 for 3 h). The ARE and the correlations coefficients of the AE models are slightly poorer compared to the Kp and Dst models. Again, Figures 3 and 4 provide insights to the model performance using the two example storms. In general, the AEs response to the solar wind is rapid (steep decline BI versus AE curve in Figure 5), and both of these models were trained using data of 1 h resolution, which tend to be rather coarse. The decline in the long-term prediction performance of the AE model can also be attributed to the fact that AE has two components to it, one which is directly driven by the polar cap potential, and one with a 1 h response time from tailside reconnection. Both depend most critically on the most recent 2 h of solar wind data, without an extended response, making long-term predictions more difficult. [23] In the near future, we intend to train our algorithms using the SME index developed recently by Newell and Gjerloev [2011], an index that is a generalization of the AE indices but computed from more than 100 observatories using 300 ground-based magnetometers under the SuperMAG collaboration [Gjerloev, 2009]. This will refine our data cadence to 10 min or less and we are very likely to get greater specificity, but perhaps with shorter lead time. Moreover, with 100 or more observatories around the world, we can consider providing regional and local forecast of a certain index that a user might critically depend on as opposed to merely forecasting a global index.
activities. Borovsky et al. [1998] have shown strong correlation between the solar wind density and the density of the Earths plasma sheet. [25] In order to increase the baseline further, we have extended the study to accommodate the solar wind density through an explicit dynamic pressure term in the network inputs. Dynamic pressure (Dp) : Psw = mpnpv2 sw(1 + 4na/ np), where np is the number density of the protons and na/np is the alpha to proton ratio; Psw is one of the most commonly used viscous terms besides vsw. Here, we propose to bring an extra term into the network in the form of solar wind pressure rather than actually modifying the BI; i.e., for a 1 h ahead prediction model, 6 h of solar wind input history means having a set of 6 1 h BIs and 6 1 h Dps as inputs to the network. Unlike the original 1 h BI-only models, the data designated here for training, testing and validation are 47%, 36%, and 17% of the total available data. The following equations summarize the best performing funcp p p 3 3 3 tions: KpRam t 1 f BIt BIt 1 :: BIt8 ; Dpt Dpt1 :: Dpt 8 ; q q q 3 3 3 Dp t Dp t3 :: Dp t18 ; KpRam t 3 f BI t BI t 3 BI t 18 ; p p p 3 3 3 AE; Dst Ram t1;t3 f BIt BIt1 :: BIt9 ; Dpt Dpt 1 :: Dpt 9 . [26] The best performing p dynamic pressure term for the new models is the 3 Dp. We tested different powers of p Dp before using 3 Dp . While the motivation for this approach was conceived from literature examples, our arrival to this term is merely through experimentation. The results of the new models are shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 now show the specific cases of the December 2006 and April 2001 storms using the new models. The biggest advantage of including the dynamic pressure term in inputs can be seen in the Kp models. Density enhancements in the upstream solar wind due to high-speed streams following a CME are captured well through this new function, and the resulting overall statistics have improved significantly (r = 0.881 vs 0.854 for 1 h; r = 0.862 vs 0.812 for 3 h). However, the results from the new Dst (r = 0.861 vs 0.855 for 1 h; r = 0.840 vs 0.833 for 3 h) and AE (r = 0.837 vs 0.828; r = 0.802 vs 0.782) models are only slightly better than the BI-only models.
Table 3. Prediction Summary of the ANN-Based Dst Models Using the Boyle Index and Dynamic Pressure, the Newell Function, and Borovsky Functiona
Dst Forecast Model BI and Dp: Dstt+1 Newell function: Dstt+1 Borovsky function: Dstt+1 BI and Dp: Dstt+3 Newell function: Dstt+3 Borovsky function: Dstt+3 BI and Dp: Dstt+6 Newell function: Dstt+6 Borovsky function: Dstt+6
a c b
6. Pressure Term Inclusion: The Ram Functions

[24] We have investigated and shown that the BI can best characterize the magnetospheric activity over three distinct ground-based geomagnetic indices, namely Kp, Dst, and AE. However, this function does not contain an explicit solar wind density term (viscous term in v2 sw and merging term in sin3(q/2)). Studies in the past [e.g., Lopez et al., 2004; Weigel, 2010] have argued the solar wind densitys strong influence on the energy transfer into the magnetosphere and hence the subsequent storms and ring current
rb 0.861 0.843 0.822 0.840 0.811 0.810 0.795 0.750 0.748
RMSE 8.835 nT 9.24 nT 9.83 nT 9.40 nT 9.96 nT 10.11 nT 10.34 nT 11.15 nT 11.64 nT
AREc 0.263 0.291 0.293 0.271 0.346 0.300 0.331 0.392 0.360
t Test < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1%
The results cover data from April 2001, 2006, and 2007. Here r is the linear correlation coefficient. Thresholds for the ARE: Kp > 4, Dst < 40 nT, and AE > 500 nT.
6 of 11
S06001
S06001
Table 4. Prediction Summary of the ANN-Based AE Models Using the Boyle Index and Dynamic Pressure, the Newell Function, and Borovsky Functiona
AE Forecast Model BI and Dp: AEt+1 Newell Function: AEt+1 Borovsky Function: AEt+1 BI and Dp: AEt+3 Newell Function: AEt+3 Borovsky Function: Aet+3 BI and Dp: AEt+6 Newell Function: AEt+6 Borovsky Function: AEt+6
a c b
rb 0.837 0.834 0.766 0.802 0.786 0.750 0.650 0.633 0.631
RMSE 92.90 nT 93.61 nT 108.86 nT 92.85 nT 96.82 nT 102.76 nT 118.21 nT 120.73 nT 120.25 nT
AREc 0.289 0.273 0.353 0.325 0.331 0.362 0.465 0.479 0.497
t Test < < < < < < < < < 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
The results cover data from April 2001, 2006, and 2007. Here r is the linear correlation coefficient. Thresholds for the ARE: Kp > 4, Dst < 40 nT, and AE > 500 nT.
[27] A autocorrelation function provides another important perspective toward understanding the predicted results in that it helps distinguish a true prediction from persistence. To perform this test, we compare the autocorrelation functions of the observed time series and the predicted time series with that of itself, i.e., autocorrelation of the observed series with itself. We find that in the case of 3 h predictions, the cross-correlation peak (observed versus predicted) occurs at zeroth lag beating the autocorrelation (observed versus observed) at the 3 h lag. In this case, we have a true successful prediction. However, noting that the 1 h Kps are oversampled 3 h Kps, though the crosscorrelation function for 1 h predictions peaks at zeroth lag it falls slightly behind in value of the autocorrelation function at its 1 h lag. Yet, this is still an encouraging result for practical applications given the time delay or lack of availability of data in providing nowcast Kps. We then examined the cross-correlation function for the Dst and AE
Figure 7. The 1 h predictions of Kp, Dst, and AE from our new models using the Ramt+1 functions are shown against the Newell driver for the same time period between 10 and 14 April 2001.
predictions. Our conclusion is that for the 1 h models of Dst and AE, the cross-correlation function peaks at the zeroth lag. However, for our 3 h models, the cross-correlation function peaks at negative 2 h lag in the case of Dst and at negative 1 h in the case of the AE index. [28] Finally, we did not evaluate the performances of other existing models intrinsically but relied on the data found in the literature for comparisons. In fact, such one-to-one comparisons are often difficult owing to the different data sets and the time resolution used in the studies. Our new updated Kp models are better than the models in paper 1 (r = 0.881 vs 0.852; 0.862 vs 0.845), and our 1 h Kp model is
Figure 6. The 1 h predictions of Kp, Dst, and AE from our new models using the Ramt+1 functions are shown against the Newell driver for the same time period between 14 and 18 December 2006.
Figure 8. The 3 h ahead predictions of Kp, Dst, and AE from our new models using the Ramt+3 functions are shown against the Newell driver for the same time period between 14 and 18 December 2006.
7 of 11
26
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
S06001
S06001
Figure 9. The 3 h ahead predictions of Kp, Dst, and AE from our new models using the Ramt+3 functions are shown against the Newell driver for the same time period between 10 and 14 April 2001.
an improvement over the APL Kp model 3 (r = 0.84) [Wing et al., 2005]. We find our 1 h Dst model, with r = 0.861 and RMSE of 8.835 nT ( 18200 h of test data) to be better than the Wu and Lundstedt [1997] model (RMSE = 14.7 nT from 1957 h of test data), but slightly behind the Temerin and Li [2002] value of 7.9 nT (4320 h of highresolution test data). Our 3 h Dst model, in addition to extending the forecast lead time, performs nearly as well as our 1 h model (r = 0.840; RMSE = 9.40 nT; ARE = 0.271). As an example, predictions of our 1 h Dst model for 1418 December 2006 is illustrated in Figure 4 with r = 0.928, RMSE = 15.02 nT; real-time WINDMI Dst results [Mays et al., 2009] for the same event are r = 0.860, RMSE = 21 nT. In our future generation of Dst models, we will incorporate a longer weighting time and explore the base functions at a much higher time cadence.
7. Newell and Borovsky Functions

[29] A wide array of input functions can be noted in the literature, and testing them all is well beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, we only selected two notable solar wind drivers developed recently: (a) a solar wind coupling function that is derived empirically to characterize a host of geomagnetic indices [Newell et al., 2008] and (b) a solar wind coupling function, derived from first principle, that takes into account the dayside reconnection parameters [Borovsky, 2008]. We have created two new independent sets of ANN models that are optimized for performance. In order to eliminate any bias, we have trained, tested and validated them individually before evaluating the results. [30] Newell et al. [2008], from a rigorous analysis, have shown that the single coupling function from the solar wind is successful in predicting a wide variety of magnetospheric phenomenon without relying on the time
history of the target index. Using their merging term 2/3 8/3 (dFMP/dt = v4/3 (q/2)) alone, they were able to sw BT sin correlate 9 out of 10 indices of magnetospheric activity including Kp, Dst and the AE index. However, combining their top-performing viscous function (n1/2v2 sw) with the merging term provided the best combination overall to predict up to 61% of variance across all indices. We have trained, tested and validated new ANN architectures based on input time histories of the Newell functions; separate time histories were created for both coupling and viscous functions. The best functions are explicitly given by KpNewell f(Ct, Ct1, .., Ct8; Vt, Vt1, .., Ct8), t+1 f(C t, C t3, .., C t18; V t, V t3, .., V t18), and [AE; KpNewell t+3 Dst]Newell t+1;t+3 f(Ct, Ct1, .., Ct9; Vt, Vt1, .., Ct9), where C and V denotes the coupling and viscous components respectively for 1 h averages (3 h averages are explicitly denoted by C and V ). [31] Tables 2, 3, and 4 summarize the validation results. The Newell driver predicts slightly better in the Kp models (0.884 vs 0.881; 0.863 vs 0.862) and slightly worse than the Ram functions on the Dst and AE models. The prediction performances of the Newell driver and Ram functions are too close that we have explicitly compared them through head-to-head tests. To be consistent, the results illustrated in Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the two specific cases of storms as discussed in section 5. It can be noted that both the models (Ramt+1 and Newellt+1) have been able to capture the rise and fall in the activity levels. Using the same observation, we can also recognize that, in the case of Dst index, both the models are matching the peak value. We can therefore, by bringing in the viscous term, enhance the predictability of these indices. So long as there is a good measurement of the solar wind density available from an upstream monitor, one should include the viscous component as suggested in these models. [32] Borovsky [2008] derived another coupling function R, called the solar wind control function (CF), by taking the dayside reconnection rate parameters into account. The control function R is given by the following expression: R = 2 1/2 0.4 m1/2 sin(q/2)roV2 [C ro + (1 + o o (1 + 0.5 Mms )(1 + b s) 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 rm] [1 + b s) + 1 , where ro is the mass b s) density of the solar wind upstream of the bow shock; vo is the velocity of the solar wind upstream of the bow shock; C is the compression ratio of the bow shock; b s is the plasma b value of the magnetosheath plasma near the nose; and Mms is the magnetosonic Mach number of the solar wind. Supplements to expression R can be found in Borovsky [2008]. [33] The best functions that define the Borovsky driver f(Rt, Rt1, .., Rt7); KpBorovsky are given by KpBorovsky t+1 t+3 Borovsky f(Rt, Rt1, .., Rt9); [AE]Borovsky f(Rt, Rt3, .., Rt27); [Dst]t+1 t+1 f(Rt, Rt1, .., Rt8); [AE; Dst]Borovsky f(Rt, Rt1, , Rt9). The t+3 results of the models using the Borovsky control function is listed alongside the two coupling functions in Tables 2, 3, and 4. In the absence of Mms, which is often difficult to compute, we have substituted MA for Mms above as suggested in Borovsky [2008]. We have also assumed rm = 0.
8 of 11
S06001
S06001
Figure 10. The 1 h ahead predictions of Kp, Dst, and AE from our new models (BIt+1) are shown for a recent activity (26 September 2011). The top panel shows the 1 h BI values for both real-time ACE (smooth line) and time shifted at Earth measurements. The predictions are based on the real-time ACE data.
Therefore, given the nature of the expression and, perhaps, because of the difficulty in finding the right observed variables using an upstream solar wind monitor, this function is less effective as a predictor.
7.1. Longer-Range Predictions [34] The two important issues relevant to space weather forecasting are accuracy and lead time. Thus far, we focused on the former, improving the accuracy of short-term forecasts in the range 13 h. Here we attempt to raise the lead time further. We trained the network with 3 h averages in order to predict 6 h ahead. The q qbest q are functions
KpRam Dp t Dp t3 :: Dp t18 ); t+6 f(BI t BI t3 BI t 18 ; q q q 3 3 3 Dp t Dp t3 :: Dp t27); [Dst]Ram t+6 f(BI t BI t 3 BI t 27 ; q q q 3 3 3 Dp t Dp t3 :: Dp t21). [AE]Ram t+6 F(BI t BI t 3 BI t 21 ; [35] Tables 2, 3, and 4 list the summary of these models using the same reference thresholds as in Table 1, which is our baseline for comparison. The best performing model is the Kp model followed by Dst and then the AE. The AE index responds more rapidly to the solar wind input, so longer-range predictions are relatively difficult. Even though the prediction efficiency of all the models has dropped significantly going from 3 h to full 6 h, one can use these models as a baseline for issuing probabilistic forecasts, which can be updated for accuracy as we get nearer the forecasted time.
3 3 3
for new performance standards. Currently, the BI-driven 1 h and 3 h models are up and running and the predictions can be accessed in real time at http://mms.rice.edu/ realtime/forecast.html. In addition to this, the webpage also provides the status of the current space weather condition (updating every 10 min) and, as an educational resource, description of various parameters of the solar wind. Interested users can go to http://mms.rice.edu/ realtime/dials.html and to the links therein. [37] As an example, Figure 10 shows predictions from a recent activity (26 September 2011). The activity saw high spikes in the BI, reaching a 10 min averaged peak value of 373 kV on 26 September at 1836 UTC. The first panel shows the real-time estimates (without time shifts) of the BI versus the 1 AU 1 h merged values archived at the OMNIWeb. Correspondingly, the 1 h predictions of Kp, Dst, and AE is also shown. The predictions reached alert level thresholds much earlier than the observed peak value of the BI, which occurred on Monday, 26 September at 15:46:00 UTC. A prediction-based Yellow alert was issued on Monday, 26 September at 15:04:00 UTC followed by another prediction-based Red on Monday, 26 September at 18:04:00 UTC. [38] A newly modified version of the existing alert system to send out alerts and warnings to the subscribers of our spacalrt, by giving key considerations to the results of this paper, is in effect. Our subscribers have been receiving notices and warnings through this new system in the event of any severe geomagnetic activity that may be ongoing or imminent. An alert is called Yellow and issued whenever two consecutive measurements of 10 min averages of the BI exceed 150 kV or if either of the NOAA estimated planetary K index (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ rt_plots/kp_3d.html) or the ANN predicted Kp exceeds 4. An alert is called Red and issued if it meets any of the following criterion: (a) the 10 min BI exceeds 200 kV, provided the previous had been at least 150 kV; (b) the NOAA estimated planetary K index exceeds 6; or (c) the ANN predicted Kp exceeds 6, and in this case the Red alert could be an upgrade to a previously issued Yellow alert or a fresh alert by itself. Interested users can subscribe to our system by sending an e-mail to spacalrt-subscribe@ mailman.rice.edu.
9. Conclusions
[39] In this work, we have introduced new Dst and AE and improved Kp prediction models based on solar wind coupling functions trained using ANNs. Not surprisingly, our analyses indicate a decline in the prediction accuracy with increasing lead time. The predictive power of the BI driven models increases with the inclusion of dynamic pressure term. We have also trained and tested the models with other notable functions found in the literature: the Newell function and the Borovsky control function. The Newell function is somewhat similar in form to the BI. While the Newell function proves to have a slight advantage over the BI for predicting Kp, the Boyle index
9 of 11
8. Real-Time Operations
[36] The modified Kp models and new algorithms to predict Dst and AE have been tested against historic data
28
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
S06001
S06001
combined with the pressure term does well in predicting the Dst and AE indices. [40] The new forecast models are running in real time and the results are available at http://mms.rice.edu/ realtime/forecast.html. Our 1 h models are useful for applications needing accurate real time forecasts of global geomagnetic indices. This might include satellite operators, high-voltage power grid companies, oil pipe lines for whom sudden fluctuations in the geomagnetic fields could be catastrophic. We also provide forecasts with lead times of 3 h and 6 h, but with slightly higher uncertainly. Currently, we are also exploring the possibility of running our models to provide longer lead times through the use of data from the STEREO Real-Time Space Weather Beacon or a suitable monitor at the L5 Lagrangian point that may become available in the future. This would help keep the false alarm rates to a minimum and make the models more accurate.
[41] Acknowledgments. This paper is based upon work supported partially by the William and Elva Gordon fund, NASA under cooperative agreement NAG5-316, and by the MMS mission under contract to SWRI. We thank the ACE Science Center for providing the ACE data. We also thank the OMNIWeb for maintaining the solar wind, magnetic field, and plasma data. We also wish to thank the GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ), Potsdam, Germany for maintaining and providing the official Kp records and the World Data Center for Geomagnetism, Kyoto for maintaining the Dst and AE records.
References
Antia, H. M., and S. Basu (2010), Solar rotation rate during the cycle 24 minimum in activity, Astrophys. J., 720(1), 494502, doi:10.1088/0004637X/720/1/494. Baker, D. N. (2000), The occurrence of operational anomalies in spacecraft and their relationship to space weather, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 28, 20072016, doi:10.1109/27.902228. Bala, R., P. H. Reiff, and J. E. Landivar (2009), Real-time prediction of magnetospheric activity using the Boyle index, Space Weather, 7, S04003, doi:10.1029/2008SW000407. Balasubramanian, R. (2010), Forecasting geomagnetic activity indices using the Boyle index through artificial neural networks, PhD dissertation, William Marsh Rice Univ., Houston, Tex. Boaghe, O. M., M. A. Balikhin, S. A. Billings, and H. Alleyne (2001), Identification of nonlinear processes in the magnetospheric dynamics and forecasting of Dst index, J. Geophys. Res., 106(A12), 30,04730,066, doi:10.1029/2000JA900162. Boberg, F., P. Wintoft, and H. Lundstedt (2000), Real time Kp predictions from solar wind data using neural networks, Phys. Chem. Earth, Part C, 25, 275280, doi:10.1016/S1464-1917(00)00016-7. Borovsky, J. E. (2008), The rudiments of a theory of solar wind/magnetosphere coupling derived from first principles, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A08228, doi:10.1029/2007JA012646. Borovsky, J. E., M. F. Thomsen, and R. C. Elphic (1998), The driving of the plasma sheet by the solar wind, J. Geophys. Res., 103(A8), 17,61717,639, doi:10.1029/97JA02986. Boyle, C. B., P. H. Reiff, and M. R. Hairston (1997), Empirical polar cap potentials, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 111125, doi:10.1029/96JA01742. Burton, R. K., R. L. McPherron, and C. T. Russell (1975), An empirical relationship between interplanetary conditions and Dst, J. Geophys. Res., 80(31), 42044214, doi:10.1029/JA080i031p04204. Choi, H.-S., J. Lee, K.-S. Cho, Y.-S. Kwak, I.-H. Cho, Y.-D. Park, Y.-H. Kim, D. N. Baker, G. D. Reeves, and D.-K. Lee (2011), Analysis of GEO spacecraft anomalies: Space weather relationships, Space Weather, 9, S06001, doi:10.1029/2010SW000597. Costello, K. A. (1997), Moving the Rice MSFM into a real-time forecast mode using solar wind driven forecast models, PhD dissertation, William Marsh Rice Univ., Houston, Tex.
Davis, T. N., and M. Sugiura (1966), Auroral electrojet activity index AE and its universal time variations, J. Geophys. Res., 71, 785801, doi:10.1029/JZ071i003p00785. Gannon, J. L., and J. J. Love (2011), USGS 1-min Dst index, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 73(23), 323334, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.02.013. Gavrishchaka, V. V., and S. B. Ganguli (2001), Optimization of the neural-network geomagnetic model for forecasting large-amplitude substorm events, J. Geophys. Res., 106(A4), 62476257, doi:10.1029/ 2000JA900137. Gjerloev, J. W. (2009), A global ground-based magnetometer initiative, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(27), 230, doi:10.1029/2009EO270002. Gleisner, H., and H. Lundstedt (1997), Response of the auroral electrojets to the solar wind modeled with neural networks, J. Geophys. Res., 102(A7), 14,26914,278, doi:10.1029/96JA03068. Gleisner, H., and H. Lundstedt (2001), Auroral electrojet predictions with dynamic neural networks, J. Geophys. Res., 106(A11), 24,54124,549, doi:10.1029/2001JA900046. Hairston, M. R., T. W. Hill, and R. A. Heelis (2003), Observed saturation of the ionospheric polar cap potential during the 31 March 2001 storm, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(6), 1325, doi:10.1029/2002GL015894. Horton, W., M. J. Mithaiwala, E. A. Spencer, and I. Doxas (2005), WINDMI: A family of physics network models for storms and substorms, in Multiscale Coupling of Sun-Earth Processes, edited by A. T. Y. Lui, Y. Kamide, and G. Consolini, pp.431445, Elsevier, Amsterdam, doi:10.1016/B978-044451881-1/50032-0. Kamide, Y., et al. (1998), Current understanding of magnetic storms: Storm-substorm relationships, J. Geophys. Res., 103(A8), 17,70517,728, doi:10.1029/98JA01426. Lindsay, G. M., C. T. Russell, and J. G. Luhmann (1999), Predictability of Dst index based upon solar wind conditions monitored inside 1 AU, J. Geophys. Res., 104(A5), 10,33510,344, doi:10.1029/ 1999JA900010. Lopez, R. E., M. Wiltberger, S. Hernandez, and J. G. Lyon (2004), Solar wind density control of energy transfer to the magnetosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L08804, doi:10.1029/2003GL018780. Lundstedt, H., and P. Wintoft (1994), Prediction of geomagnetic storms from solar wind data with the use of a neural network, Ann. Geophys., 12(1), 1924, doi:10.1007/s00585-994-0019-2. Mays, M. L., W. Horton, E. Spencer, and J. Kozyra (2009), Real-time predictions of geomagnetic storms and substorms: Use of the Solar Wind Magnetosphere-Ionosphere System model, Space Weather, 7, S07001, doi:10.1029/2008SW000459. Newell, P. T., and J. W. Gjerloev (2011), Evaluation of SuperMAG auroral electrojet indices as indicators of substorms and aural power, J. Geophys. Res., 116, A12211, doi:10.1029/2011JA016779. Newell, P. T., T. Sotirelis, K. Liou, C.-I. Meng, and F. J. Rich (2007), A nearly universal solar wind-magnetosphere coupling function inferred from 10 magnetospheric state variables, J. Geophys. Res., 112, A01206, doi:10.1029/2006JA012015. Newell, P. T., T. Sotirelis, K. Liou, and F. J. Rich (2008), Pairs of solar wind-magnetosphere coupling functions: Combining a merging term with a viscous term works best, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A04218, doi:10.1029/2007JA012825. OBrien, T. P., and R. L. McPherron (2000), An empirical phase space analysis of ring current dynamics: Solar wind control of injection and decay, J. Geophys. Res., 105(A4), 77077719, doi:10.1029/ 1998JA000437. Pallocchia, G., E. Amata, G. Consolini, M. F. Marcucci, and I. Bertello (2008), AE index forecast at different time scales through an ANN algorithm based on L1 IMF and plasma measurements, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 70(24), 663668, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2007.08.038. Papitashvili, V. O., N. E. Papitashvili, and J. H. King (2000), Solar cycle effects in planetary geomagnetic activity: Analysis of 36-year long OMNI dataset, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 27972800, doi:10.1029/ 2000GL000064. Russell, C. T. (2000), The solar wind interaction with the Earths magnetospehre: A tutorial, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 28, 18181830, doi:10.1109/27.902211. Siscoe, G. L., G. M. Erickson, B. U. . Sonnerup, N. C. Maynard, J. A. Schoendorf, K. D. Siebert, D. R. Weimer, W. W. White, and G. R. Wilson (2002), Hill model of transpolar potential saturation: Comparisons with MHD simulations, J. Geophys. Res., 107(A6), 1075, doi:10.1029/2001JA000109.
10 of 11
S06001
S06001
Spence, H. E., J. B. Blake, and J. F. Fennell (1993), Surface charging analysis of high-inclination, high-altitude spacecraft: Identification and physics of the plasma source region, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 40(6), 15211524, doi:10.1109/23.273510. Sugiura, M. (1964), Hourly values of equatorial Dst for the IGY, Ann. Int. Geophys. Year, 35, 945. Takahashi, K., B. A. Toth, and J. V. Olson (2001), An automated procedure for near-real-time Kp estimates, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 21,01721,032, doi:10.1029/2000JA000218. Takalo, J., and J. Timonen (1997), Neural network prediction of AE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24(19), 24032406, doi:10.1029/97GL02457. Temerin, M., and X. Li (2002), A new model for the prediction of Dst on the basis of the solar wind, J. Geophys. Res., 107(A12), 1472, doi:10.1029/2001JA007532.
Temerin, M., and X. Li (2006), Dst model for 19952002, J. Geophys. Res., 111, A04221, doi:10.1029/2005JA011257. Weigel, R. S. (2010), Solar wind density influence on geomagnetic storm intensity, J. Geophys. Res., 115, A09201, doi:10.1029/ 2009JA015062. Wing, S., J. R. Johnson, J. Jen, C.-I. Meng, D. G. Sibeck, K. Bechtold, J. Freeman, K. Costello, M. Balikhin, and K. Takahashi (2005), Kp forecast models, J. Geophys. Res., 110, A04203, doi:10.1029/ 2004JA010500. Wu, J.-G., and H. Lundstedt (1997), Geomagnetic storm predictions from solar wind data with the use of dynamic neural networks, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 14,25514,268, doi:10.1029/97JA00975.
Longitude and Hemispheric Dependence of Space Weather

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia | 1216 November 2012
REGISTRATION AND HOUSING NOW OPEN: Deadline: 3 October 2012

This international conference expands upon the focus on longitude and hemispheric dependence of space weather by emphasizing its response to major solar events and by examining the Earth system response. For complete meeting details, including information regarding housing, registration, the program, and more, visit:
www.agu.org/SpaceWeatherChapman
012-141
11 of 11
30
Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012
File
Edit
View
History
Bookmarks
Tools
Help
http://sites.agu.org/elections
http://sites.agu.org/elections
Get to Know the Candidates!

2013 - 2014 AGU Board and Council Elections open online 4 September. Visit http://sites.agu.org/elections to view candidates and bios.
012-305
REGISTRATION AND HOUSING
NOW OPEN!
Housing and Early Registration Deadline: 2 November, 23:59h EDT

Reserve your hotel early for best selection. Renew your membership at membership.agu.org by 1 October to receive the discounted member registration rate! Note: late registration fees for both members and nonmembers will apply after 2 November.
fallmeeting.agu.org
AGU galvanizes a community of Earth and space scientists that collaboratively advances and communicates science and its power to ensure a sustainable future.
012-308

2012, Vol 9, Issue 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012, Vol 9, Issue 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 9, Issue 3, 2012

Career Recollections From

Telstar Anniversary Reminds Us How Far Space Weather Has Come

Space Weather Quarterly Quarterly

Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012

Volume 9, Issue 3, 2012

Opinion: New Opportunities for a Historic Spacecraft

News: Space Weather Enterprise Forum Includes Broad Range of Discussion

15 Meeting Report: Workshop Addresses Aviation Community

News: National Space Weather Portal Is Online

16 Meeting Report: Florida Energy Assurance Plan

News: Forecasting the Radiation Belts in Europe

News: NOAA Improves Space Weather Watch Products

Opinion: Charting a Path Toward Improved Space Weather Forecasting

Space Weather Quarterly is cosponsored by the International Space Environment Service.

Space Weather Enterprise Forum Includes Broad Range of Discussion

Space Weather Quarterly

Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012

National Space Weather Portal Is Online

Forecasting the Radiation Belts in Europe

Space Weather Quarterly 5

NOAA Improves Space Weather Watch Products

Space Weather Quarterly

Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012

Charting a Path Toward Improved Space Weather Forecasting

Space Weather Quarterly 7

New Opportunities for a historic spacecraft

Space Weather Quarterly

Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012

Space Weather Quarterly 9

Effectiveness of Models in Predicting the Arrival of Coronal Mass Ejections

The Underestimated Effects of Solar Minimum Space Weather

Space Weather Quarterly

Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012

Improving Long-Term IonosphereThermosphere Forecasting

Space Weather Quarterly 11

REVEALING THE LINK BETWEEN SOLAR ACTIVITY & SATELLITE ANOMALIES:

Space Weather Quarterly

Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012

Space Weather Quarterly 13 Space Weather Quarterly 13

Space Weather Quarterly

Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012

Workshop Addresses Aviation Community

Space Weather Quarterly 15

Florida Energy Assurance Plan

Space Weather Quarterly

Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012

Space Weather Quarterly 17

Delores Knipps Understanding Space Weather and the Physics Behind It

Space Weather Quarterly

Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012

Now Available for iPad

Present at Exploration Station 2012!

Space Weather Quarterly 19

SPACE WEATHER, VOL. 10, S06001, doi:10.1029/2012SW000779, 2012

Improvements in short-term forecasting of geomagnetic activity

Space Weather Quarterly

Vol. 9, Issue 3, 2012

BALA AND REIFF: SHORT-TERM FORECASTING OF Kp, Dst, AND AE

2. Data and Training

3. The BI and Space Weather

Space Weather Quarterly 21

BALA AND REIFF: SHORT-TERM FORECASTING OF Kp, Dst, AND AE