Predictability of Geomagnetically Induced Currents as a Function of Available Magnetic Field Information

Abstract

and the probability of GIC exceeding a threshold 7• Accurate characterization of surface B up to 30 mHz suggested to keep peak GIC 8 error less than 10% across multiple regions in the US 9• Predicting if GIC will cross a threshold over the next 30 minutes is reasonably pos-10 sible with an accurate prediction of peak dB/dt magnitude

On the Considerations of Using Near Real Time Data for Space Weather Hazard Forecasting

“…These methods have included statistical techniques (e.g., Shore et al, 2017;Weigel et al, 2002;Weimer, 2013), global scale physics-based (Magneto-HydroDynamic, MHD) models (e.g., Pulkkinen et al, 2011Pulkkinen et al, , 2013Tõth et al, 2014;Welling, 2019), machine learning-based techniques (e.g., Blandin et al, 2022;Gleisner & Lundstedt, 2001;Keesee et al, 2020;Pinto et al, 2022;Smith, Forsyth, Rae, Garton, et al, 2021;Upendran et al, 2022;Wintoft et al, 2015Wintoft et al, , 2017, or combinations of these methods (e.g., Camporeale et al, 2020). The forecast geomagnetic (or geoelectric) field predictions can then be used to drive models based on the local geology and properties of the power network to indirectly obtain GIC estimates (Beggan et al, 2013;Blake et al, 2016Blake et al, , 2018Dimmock et al, 2021;Divett et al, 2018Divett et al, , 2020Grawe & Makela, 2021;Mac Manus et al, 2022). Each model that is used to forecast the geomagnetic consequences of space weather will use the input solar wind data in a distinct fashion, and therefore may be impacted differently by the ways in which the NRT and scientific data differ.…”

What Drove the GICs >10 A During the 17 March 2013 Event at Mäntsälä? A Novel Framework for Distinguishing the Magnetospheric Sources

“…(2017)'s frequency analysis of higher cadence magnetometer data (0.2–5/sec) enabled them to identify a relationship of Pc1 waves with plasmapause dynamics. This underscores the need for higher sampling frequency data, which not only appears to keep relative peak errors below 10% for predicting GICs (Grawe & Makela, 2021), but also appears to make the strongest contribution at magnetic latitudes <60° (Hartinger et al., 2023) such as the Continental United States and Europe.…”

Determining ULF Wave Contributions to Geomagnetically Induced Currents: The Important Role of Sampling Rate

“…Several studies have explored the impact of B sampling rate on estimates of extreme E values and GIC modeling, with mixed results. Some studies found that sampling intervals of 60 s can adequately capture B / E /GIC variations (e.g., A. Pulkkinen et al., 2006), while others (e.g., Grawe & Makela, 2021; Grawe et al., 2018; Trichtchenko, 2021) found that 60 s measurements are not adequate due to the presence of variations with frequencies ( f ) higher than the Nyquist frequency ( f Nyquist60 = 0.0083 Hz for measurements sampled every 60 s). Rogers et al.…”

“…Several studies have explored the impact of B sampling rate on estimates of extreme E values and GIC modeling, with mixed results. Some studies found that sampling intervals of 60 s can adequately capture B/E/GIC variations (e.g., A. , while others (e.g., Grawe & Makela, 2021;Grawe et al, 2018;Trichtchenko, 2021) found that 60 s measurements are not adequate due to the presence of variations with frequencies (f) higher than the Nyquist frequency (f Nyquist60 = 0.0083 Hz for measurements sampled every 60 s). Rogers et al (2021) found for three locations in the United Kingdom that B fluctuations with roughly 1,200 s period (f ≪ f Nyquist60 ) produced the most intense E when considering events occurring several times per year, whereas the 1-in-100 years return levels were greatest for 30-120 s period fluctuations (f ≥ f Nyquist60 ).…”