Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0801.2709

Comment on "Geoeffectiveness of halo coronal mass ejections" by N. Gopalswamy, S. Yashiro, and S. Akiyama

Yu. I. Yermolaev
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Comment on paper: Gopalswamy, N., S. Yashiro, and S. Akiyama (2007), Geoeffectiveness of halo coronal mass ejections, J. Geophys. Res., 112, A06112, doi:10.1029/2006JA012149 Gopalswamy et al. [2007] studied the geoeffectiveness of halo coronal mass ejections (CMEs) on the basis of solar observations during 1996-2005 and found that the geoeffectiveness of 229 frontside halo CMEs was 71%. Recently for observations of 305 frontside halo CMEs during 1997-2003 the geoeffectiveness was found to be 40% [Kim et al., 2005]. Complex analysis of both solar and interplanetary measurements showed that the geoeffectiveness of frontside halo CMEs is likely to be about 50% [Yermolaev et al., 2005; Yermolaev and Yermolaev, 2006]. Gopalswamy et al. [2007] did not discuss possible causes of this difference and were limited only to the general words: "The reason for the conflicting results (geoeffectiveness of CMEs ranging from 35% to more than 80%) may be attributed to the different definition of halo CMEs and geoeffectiveness." So, here we shall present our point of view on high geoeffectivenees of CME obtained in paper by Gopalswamy et al. [2007].

Explore related subjects

physics.space-phphysics.geo-ph

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yu. I. Yermolaev. 2008-01-17. Comment on "Geoeffectiveness of halo coronal mass ejections" by N. Gopalswamy, S. Yashiro, and S. Akiyama. https://doi.org/10.1134/s0010952508060099

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Coordinate Systems and Transforms in Space Physics: Terms, Definitions, Implementations, and Recommendations for Reproducibility

In space physics, acronyms for coordinate systems (e.g., \texttt{GEI}, \texttt{GSM}) are commonly used; however, differences in their definitions and implementations can prevent reproducibility. In this work, we compare definitions in online resources, software packages, and frequently cited journal articles and show that implementation differences can lead to transformations between same-named coordinate systems and position values from different data providers to differ significantly. Based on these comparisons and results, and to enable reproducibility, we recommend that (a) a standard for acronyms and definitions for coordinate systems is developed, similar to equivalents in astronomy or earth sciences; (b) a standards body develops a citable database of reference data needed for these transforms. For software that computes coordinate transforms, we also recommend that their developers provide explicit comparisons of their implementations with the results of (b) and documentation on implementation choices. Additionally, we provide recommendations for scientists and metadata developers to ensure that sufficient information is provided to enable reproducibility. Finally, we document that spacecraft positions from data providers can differ both because of differences in how they implemented transforms and because of differences in the original source of the position data, and provide recommendations to improve the documentation of spacecraft positional datasets.

physics.space-ph↗
arXiv2026

Aurora Hunter: A Two-Stage Framework for Probabilistic Visibility Forecasting

Aurora visibility at a given location requires two physically distinct conditions to hold at once: aurora occurring overhead, governed by solar wind-magnetosphere coupling, and observing conditions that permit detection, governed by cloud cover and moonlight. Approaches that conflate the two weaken the space-weather signal and limit cross-site generalizability. We develop Aurora Hunter, a two-stage cascade that separates occurrence prediction from observing-condition assessment. Stage 1 uses 43 physics-driven features to predict P(aurora identifiable in all-sky images) via gradient-boosted trees trained on joint Tromso+Kiruna data (about 16,600 hours, 2015-2023). Stage 2 models P(unobscured image class | identifiable) with logistic regression on 15 observing-condition features, trained on hours with identifiable aurora. The cascade P(visible) = P(identifiable) x P(unobscured | identifiable) achieves retrospective ROC-AUC of 0.958 (Tromso test, 2019-2020) and 0.933 (independent Kiruna, 2024), improving on the occurrence stage used alone by +0.095 and +0.097. Transfer to Skibotn, the one station withheld entirely (2022-2025), is limited. SHAP analysis identifies magnetic local time, the Kp x nightside interaction and the three-hour mean Kp as the dominant features (44% of attribution), consistent with auroral oval physics. Hemisphere-wide occurrence maps combine the Stage 1 amplitude, on a clear-sky basis, with the Feldstein oval parameterization. By providing location-specific visibility probabilities with measured reliability rather than coarse geomagnetic indices, the framework links space weather research to practical observation planning. An operational proof of concept is available at https://aurora-hunter.onrender.com

physics.space-ph↗
arXiv2026

Interhemispheric differences in field-aligned currents, ground magnetic perturbations, and TEC during the geomagnetic storms of May and October 2024

This study investigates storm-to-storm variability and hemispheric differences in magnetosphere-ionosphere (MI) coupling during the extreme (G5) geomagnetic storm of May 10-11 and the severe (G4) storm of October 10-11, 2024. Global field-aligned current (FAC) patterns derived from the Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Dynamics Response Experiment (AMPERE), together with conjugate observations from ground-based magnetometers within the SuperMAG network and Global Positioning System (GPS)-derived total electron content (TEC), are analyzed to examine high-latitude electrodynamic and ionospheric responses in both hemispheres. The May event exhibits broad and relatively organized Region 1/Region 2 FAC systems encircling the polar caps across multiple local time sectors, accompanied by intervals of correspondence in conjugate magnetic perturbations and structured TEC enhancements with temporal offsets between hemispheres. In contrast, the October event shows more localized, asymmetric, and uneven FAC morphology with pronounced hemispheric and dawn-dusk asymmetries, together with greater divergence in conjugate magnetic responses and spatially heterogeneous TEC variability. These differences are consistent with enhanced mesoscale variability and asymmetric current closure under storm-time conditions. Overall, the results highlight that even under similarly strong solar wind driving, the coupled MI system can exhibit substantially different spatial organization and interhemispheric coupling, reflecting the combined influence of FAC morphology, ionospheric conductance, and local electrodynamic conditions.

physics.space-ph↗