Russian geomagnetic recordings in 1850–1862 compared to modern observations

Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

Heikki Nevanlinna²  Minna Myllys¹  Ari Viljanen² 

[1] Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 64,FI-00014,Finland;Finnish Meteorological Institute,Erik Palmenin aukio 1,FI-00560Helsinki,Finland

关键词: historical records;    geomagnetism;    extreme events;   

Others  :  800624
DOI  :  doi:10.1051/swsc/2014008

 received in 2013-12-05, accepted in 2014-03-03,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

We analyse geomagnetic recordings at four subauroral and midlatitude Russian observatories in 1850–1862. The data consist of spot readings made once in hour of the north and east components of the magnetic field. We use the hourly change of the horizontal field vector as the measure of activity. We compare these values to data from modern observatories at corresponding magnetic latitudes (Nurmijärvi, Finland, magnetic latitude ~57 N; Tartu, Estonia, ~54.5 N; Dourbes, Belgium, ~46 N) by reducing their data to the 1-h format. The largest variations at the Russian observatories occurred during the Carrington storm in September 1859 and they reached about 1000 nT/h, which was the instrumental off-scale limit. When the time stamp for the spot readings happens to be optimal, the top variation in the Nurmijärvi data is about 3700 nT/h (July 1982), and at Tartu the maximum is about 1600 nT/h (November 2004). At a midlatitude site Nertchinsk in Russia (magnetic latitude ~45 N), the variation during the Carrington storm was at the off-scale limit, and exceeded the value observed at Dourbes during the Halloween storm in October 2003. At Nertchinsk, the Carrington event was at least four times larger than any other storm in 1850–1862. Despite the limitations of the old recordings and in using only hourly spot readings, the Carrington storm was definitely a very large event at midlatitudes. At higher latitudes, it remains somewhat unclear whether it exceeds the largest modern storms, especially the one in July 1982.

【 授权许可】

   
© A. Viljanen et al., Published by EDP Sciences 2014

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 11.

Fig. 12.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Akasofu, S.-I., and Y. Kamide, Comment on “The extreme magnetic storm of 1D2 September 1859” by B.T. Tsurutani, W.D. Gonzalez, G.S. Lakhina, and S. Alex, J. Geophys. Res., 110, A09226, DOI: 10.1029/2005JA011005, 2005.
• [2]Boteler, D.H., The super storms of August/September 1859 and their effects on the telegraph system, Adv. Space Res., 38, 159–172, DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2006.01.013, 2006.
• [3]Clauer, C.R., and G. Siscoe (Eds.), The great historical geomagnetic storm of 1859: a modern look, Adv. Space Res., 38, DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2006.09.001, 2006.
• [4]Cliver, E.W., and W.F. Dietrich, The 1859 space weather event revisited: limits of extreme activity, J. Space Weather Space Clim., 3, A31, DOI: 10.1051/swsc/2013053, 2013.
• [5]Cliver, E.W., and L. Svalgaard, The 1859 solar-terrestrial disturbance and the current limits of extreme space weather activity, Sol. Phys., 224, 407–422, DOI: 10.1007/s11207-005-4980-z, 2004. [NASA ADS]
• [6]Kappenman, J.G., An overview of the impulsive geomagnetic field disturbances and power grid impacts associated with the violent Sun-Earth connection events of 29–31 October 2003 and a comparative evaluation with other contemporary storms, Space Weather, 3, S08C01, DOI: 10.1029/2004SW000128, 2005.
• [7]Kappenman, J.G., Great geomagnetic storms and extreme impulsive geomagnetic field disturbance events – an analysis of observational evidence including the great storm of May 1921, Adv. Space Res., 38, 188–199, DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.08.055, 2006.
• [8]Loomis, E., The great auroral exhibition of August 28th to September 4th, 1859, Am. J. Sci. Arts, 4th article: XXIX, 386–399, 1860.
• [9]Nevanlinna, H., Gauss’ H-Variometer at the Helsinki Magnetic Observatory (1844–1912), J. Geomagn. Geoelectr., 49, 1209–1216, DOI: 10.5636/jgg.49.1209, 1997.
• [10]Nevanlinna, H., On geomagnetic variations during the August-September storms of 1859, Adv. Space Res., 42, 171–180, DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2008.01.002, 2008.
• [11]Nevanlinna, H., and L. Häkkinen, Results of Russian geomagnetic observatories in the 19th century: magnetic activity, 1841–1862, Ann. Geophys., 28, 917–926, DOI: 10.5194/angeo-28-917-2010, 2010.
• [12]Ptitsyna, N., and A. Altamore, Father Secchi and the first Italian magnetic observatory, Hist. Geo Space. Sci., 3, 33–45, DOI: 10.5194/hgss-3-33-2012, 2012.
• [13]Ptitsyna, N.G., M.I. Tyasto, and A. Altamore, New data on the giant September 1859 magnetic storm: an analysis of Italian and Russian historic observations, in: Proceedings of the 9th Intl. Conf. “Problems of Geocosmos”, Oct 8–12, 2012, St. Petersburg, Russia, pp. 353–358, 2012a.
• [14]Ptitsyna, N.G., M.I. Tyasto, and B.A. Khrapov, Great geomagnetic storms in 1841–1870 according to the data from the network of russian geomagnetic observatories, Geomagn. Aeron., 52, 649–659, DOI: 10.1134/S0016793212040123, 2012b.
• [15]Pulkkinen, A., E. Bernabeu, J. Eichner, C. Beggan, and A.W.P. Thomson, Generation of 100-year geomagnetically induced current scenarios, Space Weather, 10, S04003, DOI: 10.1029/2011SW000750, 2012.
• [16]Siscoe, G., N.U. Crooker, and C.R. Clauer, Dst of the Carrington storm of 1859, Adv. Space Res., 38, 173–179, DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.02.102, 2006.
• [17]Thomson, A., E. Dawson, and S. Reay, Quantifying extreme behaviour in geomagnetic activity, Space Weather, 9, S10001, DOI: 10.1029/2011SW000696, 2011.
• [18]Tsurutani, B.T., W.D. Gonzalez, G.S. Lakhina, and S. Alex, The extreme magnetic storm of 1–2 September 1859, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 1268, DOI: 10.1029/2002JA009504, 2003. [NASA ADS]
• [19]Tyasto, M.I., N.G. Ptitsyna, I.S. Veselovsky, and O.S. Yakovchouk, Extremely strong geomagnetic storm of September 2–3, 1859, According to the archived data of observations at the Russian network, Geomagn. Aeron., 49, 153–162, DOI: 10.1134/S0016793209020030, 2009.
• [20]Viljanen, A., The relation between geomagnetic variations and their time derivatives and implications for estimation of induction risks, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 631–634, DOI: 10.1029/97GL00538, 1997.