On Magnetic Storms and Substorms PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239847712 On magnetic storms and substorms Article · January 2006 CITATIONS READS 9...

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239847712 On magnetic storms and substorms Article · January 2006 CITATIONS READS 9 258 4 authors: G. S. Lakhina Suresh A Indian Institute of Geomagnetism Amet University 313 PUBLICATIONS 6,586 CITATIONS 129 PUBLICATIONS 1,688 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Shyamoli Mukherjee Geeta Vichare Indian Institute of Geomagnetism Indian Institute of Geomagnetism 18 PUBLICATIONS 278 CITATIONS 98 PUBLICATIONS 727 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Shyamoli Mukherjee on 31 January 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. ILWS WORKSHOP 2006, GOA, FEBRUARY 19-24, 2006 On magnetic storms and substorms G. S. Lakhina, S. Alex, S. Mukherjee and G. Vichare Indian Institute of Geomagnetism, New Panvel (W), Navi Mumbai-410218, India Abstract. Magnetospheric substorms and storms are indicators of geomagnetic activity. Whereas the geomagnetic index AE (auroral electrojet) is used to study substorms, it is common to characterize the magnetic storms by the Dst (disturbance storm time) index of geomagnetic activity. This talk discusses briefly the storm-substorms relationship, and highlights some of the characteristics of intense magnetic storms, including the events of 29-31 October and 20-21 November 2003. The adverse effects of these intense geomagnetic storms on telecommunication, navigation, and on spacecraft functioning will be discussed. Index Terms. Geomagnetic activity, geomagnetic storms, space weather, substorms. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Introduction latitude magnetic fields are significantly depressed over a Magnetospheric storms and substorms are indicators of time span of one to a few hours followed by its recovery geomagnetic activity. Where as the magnetic storms are which may extend over several days (Rostoker, 1997). driven directly by solar drivers like Coronal mass ejections, solar flares, fast streams etc., the substorms, in simplest terms, are the disturbances occurring within the magnetosphere that are ultimately caused by the solar wind. The magnetic storms are characterized by the Dst (disturbance storm time) index of geomagnetic activity. The substorms, on the other hand, are characterized by geomagnetic AE (auroral electrojet) index. Magnetic reconnection plays an important role in energy transfer from solar wind to the magnetosphere. Magnetic reconnection is very effective when the interplanetary magnetic field is directed southwards leading to strong plasma injection from the tail towards the inner magnetosphere causing intense auroras at high-latitude nightside regions. The solar wind energy input in the magnetosphere is ~ 1011 W during substorms and it is ~ 1013 W during moderate magnetic storm. The basic process of energy transfer remains the same, i.e., magnetic reconnection, but it occurs on different time and spatial scales. Magnetospheric substorms usually last for a period ~ one to a few hours. During substorms there is an explosive release of stored magnetotail energy in the form of energetic particles (~ 5-50 keV) and strong plasma flows (~ 100-1000 km/s or so) and dissipated in the near-Earth nightside auroral region. This results in the excitation of discrete auroras which become widespread and intense, also much more agitated. The Earth's magnetic field gets disturbed due to intensified Fig. 1. Pictures of aurora taken at Indian station Maitri at Antarctica on 19 field-aligned currents and auroral electrojets. Fig. 1 shows June, 2003 by Dr. Arun Hanchinal, IIG, Navi Mumbai. the aurora observed over Indian Antarctic station Maitri. Geomagnetic storms occur when solar wind- Geomagnetic storms are characterized by a Main Phase magnetosphere coupling becomes intensified during the during which the horizontal component of the Earth’s low- arrival of fast moving solar ejecta like interplanetary coronal 2 Lakhina et al: On Magnetic Storms and Substorms mass ejections (ICMEs) and fast streams from the coronal system, well- known to be associated with the substorm. It is holes, etc. accompanied by long intervals of southward highly correlated with the Dst and poorly with the solar wind. interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) as in a “magnetic cloud” Such a separation of magnetic observatory network data into (Klein and Burlaga, 1982). As mentioned earlier the major convection and substorm components strongly supports the mechanism of energy transfer from the solar wind to the idea of substorms driving the magnetic storm (Sun et al., Earth’s magnetosphere is magnetic reconnection (Dungey, 1998; Sun and Akasofu, 2000). 1961). The efficiency of the reconnection process is considerably enhanced during southward IMF intervals (Gonzalez et al., 1989; Tsurutani and Gonzalez, 1997), leading to strong plasma injection from the magnetotail towards the inner magnetosphere causing intense auroras at high-latitude nightside regions. Further, as the magnetotail plasma gets injected into the nightside magnetosphere, the energetic protons drift to the west and electrons to the east, forming a ring of current around the Earth. This current, called the “ring current”, causes a diamagnetic decrease in the Earth’s magnetic field measured at near-equatorial magnetic stations. The decrease in the equatorial magnetic field strength, measured by the Dst index, is directly related to the total kinetic energy of the ring current particles; thus the Dst index is a good measure of the energetics of the magnetic storm. The Dst index itself is influenced by the interplanetary parameters. Here we shall discuss first the relationship between Fig. 2. Shows schematically two driving mechanisms of magnetic storms (Lui, 2003) magnetic storms and substorms, and then some characteristics of intense magnetic storms including October- Numerical simulations of ring current with impulsive November 2003 intense magnetic storm events. electric fields mimicking the substorm effects indicate that a stronger ring current than one that can be produced from only 2. Magnetic storm–substorm relationship a convection electric field is generated (Fok et al., 1999). In the earlier view, magnetic storms are caused by frequent occurrence of intense Substorms (Akasofu and Chapman There are several studies that support the convection as 1961). This view was substantiated further by the driver for magnetic storm. The Dst index can be predicted observations of energetic particles transported impulsively well using interplanetary conditions alone (Burton et al., from the plasma sheet into the outer region of the ring current 1975; Kamide et al., 1998). This idea is further strengthened region during substorms (McIlwain, 1974). by the fact that intense magnetic storms are found during long duration (>3-5 hrs) of southward IMF, a condition The modern view is that the magnetic storms are driven by favoring strong dawn-to-dusk magnetospheric electric field the enhanced magnetospheric convection from sustained (Gonzalez and Tsurutani, 1987). southward interplanetary magnetic fields (Kamide 1992). The particles residing in the plasma sheet can be transported A superposed epoch analysis shows a decrease in the rate closer to the Earth by a large magnetospheric electric field of development of Dst index with substorm occurrence, arising from the interaction of strong southward IMF with the contrary to the view that substorm contribute to the build-up geomagnetic field. Enhancement in the dawn to dusk of the ring current as measured by Dst index (Iyemori and magnetospheric electric field allows a deeper penetration of Rao, 1996). Numerical simulations of enhanced energetic plasma sheet particles Earthward by overpowering magnetospheric convection indeed show build-up of ring the azimuthal deflection of the particles due to gradient and current without including the impulsive injection from curvature drifts. Above two views of the magnetic storms are substorm (Chen et al., 1994). illustrated schematically in Fig. 2 (Lui, 2003). Tsurutani et al. (2003a) did not find substorms (i.e., We shall first briefly describe the studies supporting the substorm expansion phases) in a limited subset of magnetic idea of frequent substorms as driver for magnetic storm. storms, those that were caused by interplanetary magnetic Analyzing the magnetic perturbations from the world wide cloud magnetic fields. Further, Tsurutani et al. (2004) looked observatory network by natural orthogonal components at the converse of storm-substorm relationship also, and technique, two prominent current patterns are found; a two- found intervals where there were very intense substorms cell current pattern associated with the magnetospheric without magnetic storms. These events are now called as high convection which is correlated well with solar wind intensity long duration continuous AE activity (HILDCAAs). parameter but poorly with Dst, and an impulsive one-cell ILWS WORKSHOP 2006, GOA, FEBRUARY 19-24, 2006 We would like to make a few more comments on the different categories of magnetic storms. From Fig. 3(b), it is magnetic storm-substorm relationship. It is noticed that evident that the main phase duration shows a clear interplanetary electric fields Ey (dawn-dusk component dependence on the duration of southward IMF. The intensity corresponding to southwards IMF) play important roles in of the storm increases with the magnitude of the southward both magnetic storms and substorms activity. It is believed IMF (see Fig. 3(c)). that fluctuating Ey gives rise to substorms and quasi-steady -150 Ey can drive magnetic storms (Kamide, 2001). Further, it is 3 believed that substorm onset is triggered by some plasma 2 -200 instabilities, e.g., ion tearing (Schindler, 1974; Lakhina and 1 7 Schindler, 1988), shear flow (Kakad et al., 2003), cross-field 6 Dst (nT) current instability (Lui et al., 1992), ballooning modes -250 4 9 (Ohtani and Tamao, 1993; Liu, 1997), lower hybrid (Huba et al., 1977), helicon modes (Lakhina and Tsurutani, 1997) etc. -300 5 Magnetic storms, on the other hand, are driven by the interplanetary conditions and not by any internal plasma -350 instability of the magnetosphere. Plasma instabilities, 8 however, could be important during the main as well as the -400 recovery phase. Role of electromagnetic ion cyclotron modes (Horne and Thorne, 1994; Fok et al., 1996) and Quasi- 2 4 6 8 10 electrostatic modes in ring current decay has been studied in (a) Main Phase duration (hr) the literature (Lakhina and Singh, 2003; Singh et al., 2004; Duration of Southward IMF (hr) 2005). The magnetic storm-substorm relationship is an active topic of debate. More details on this can be found in Sharma 16 et al. (2003). 12 3. Some characteristics of intense geomagnetic storms We studied 9 intense magnetic storms (Dst < - 175 nT) that 8 occurred during the period from 1998 to 2001. Ground magnetometer digital data of Alibag (9 deg North) Magnetic Observatory and Maitri (66 deg South), Antarctica have been 4 used. Plasma and magnetic field data from NASA’s Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft have 0 been used to find the effects of interplanetary parameters that cause intense storm. Geomagnetic indices, like, disturbance 2 4 6 8 10 storm time (Dst) index, and Auroral Electrojet (AE) index (b) Main Phase duration (hr) have been used to compute the energy budget of intense storms. -150 In Fig. 3 we have shown variation of Dst against the main -200 phase duration (panel a), duration of southward IMF versus Dst (nT) main phase interval (panel b) and Dst against magnitude of -250 maximum southward IMF (panel 3), for all 9 intense storms studied by us (Vichare et al., 2005). In Fig. 3(a), a label on a -300 point corresponds to the event number as listed in Table 1. The scatter plot of Fig. 3(a) shows a large scatter indicating -350 no clear dependence of the main phase with intensity of the storm. However, it is noticed that all magnetic cloud events -400 (labeled by 2, 5, 6, and 9) lie on the right hand side and indicate inverse proportionality of Dst deviation with the (c) main phase duration, which is not in agreement with the 20 30 40 50 earlier statistical study by Yokoyama and Kamide (1997) for Magnitude of Max. Southward IMF (nT) the period between 1983 and 1991. The underlined Fig. 3. shows a scatter plots of maximum deviation of Dst verses main phase conclusion apparently disagree with statistical study of duration (a), duration of southward IMF verses main phase duration (b), and maximum deviation of Dst verses maximum southward IMF (c) (Vichare et Yokoyama and Kamide (1997). One reason for the al., 2005). In panel a, each point is labeled by the serial number of the event disagreement may be that we have studied only a few cases shown in table 1. of intense storms. The other reason may be that our study is individual storm based, the analysis of Yokoyama and Kamide (1997) considers the average values of Dst index for 4 Lakhina et al: On Magnetic Storms and Substorms Table 1. Characteristics of 9 Intense Geomagnetic Storm Events Studied. In order to quantify the energy budget of intense magnetic Report and Forecast of Solar Geophysical Data. In Table 2, storms, we computed the solar wind energies, we have given the solar events and ground observations magnetospheric coupling energies, auroral and Joule heating corresponding to October-November 2003 magnetic storms. energies and the ring current energies for each storm. It is found that during main phase of the storm, almost 5% of the Fig. 4 shows the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) total solar wind kinetic energy is available for the parameters, |B| and its components By and Bz measured by redistribution in the magnetosphere, whereas during total ACE (top 3 panels), and the variations of the SYM ‘H’ storm period (main phase + recovery phase) it reduces to component of the ring current along with the 'H' component 3.5%. of the geomagnetic field recorded at Alibag and Tirunelveli (bottom 3 panels) for the October 29-31, 2003 event (Alex et 4. Some features of 29-31 October and 20-21 November al., 2006). Vertical dashed lines indicate arrival of the first 2003 magnetic storms shock at ACE at 06:00 UT on October 29 and the second A series of powerful solar flares and CMEs erupted from the shock at 16:00 UT on October 30, 2003. These shocks are Sun during October-November 2003 and caused intense associated with the solar ejecta of the solar flare events of 28 magnetic storms on 29-31 October and 20-21 November and 29 October 2003 listed in Table 2. The data of SYM ‘H’ 2003. Solar cycle 23 also witnessed several intense solar and ‘H’ component of ABG and TIR are time shifted by 12 enegetic particle events (SEP) associated with flare and CME min. to correspond to the interplanetary shock arrival time erruptions from the active Sun. We studied these events by from the location of ACE to the magnetopause. The impact using the digital ground magnetic field measurements from of the first shock produced storm sudden commencement (SSC) of 113 nT at the equatorial station Tirunelveli and 62 the equatorial station Tirunelveli (TIR)(Geogr. 8° 42′ N, 77° nT at the low latitude station Alibag (bottom 2 panels) on 29 48′ E; Geomag. 0.36° S, 149.78°) and the low latitude station October. The second shock produced SSC of magnitude 45 Alibag (ABG) (Geogr. 18° 37′ N, 72° 52′ E; Geomag. 9.7° nT and 47 nT at Tirunelveli and Alibag, respectively, on 30 N, 145.6°) in conjunction with the available parameters of October 2003. After the passage of the first shock, both Bz solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field from the and By field components of IMF were highly fluctuating for satellites. Solar wind data is from the Advanced Composition a period of one hour until 0700 UT. The IMF polarity Explorer (ACE) / Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) at remained northward during the CME passage for sustained L1 point. The solar activity conditions were obtained from the periods during a major part of the main phase. Both ABG and ILWS WORKSHOP 2006, GOA, FEBRUARY 19-24, 2006 TIR H components show fluctuating negative magnetic To get a better understanding of the correlation between fields. However, the oscillating field magnitude tends to the pulsating variations of the ground magnetic field and the become less negative when the interplanetary magnetic field corresponding fluctuating interplanetary magnetic field Bz becomes positive but keeps on modulating during the behind the large pressure gradient of the prime shock at 0600 period 0900 UT-1300 UT. When the interplanetary magnetic UT on 29 October 2003, we have shown in Fig. 5 a scatter field component Bz turned southward again, the main phase plot of disturbance ‘H’ component of the magnetic field at depression restarted with the decrease of ground magnetic Alibag and the corresponding interplanetary magnetic field field at the two stations (1300 UT-2400 UT). Bz component for the time period of 0615-1400 UT. Lag time of 25 minutes in the Alibag data is considered for this Table 2. Solar, Interplanetary and Ground Events Associated with October- plot. The scatter plot shows the close correspondence for the November 2003 Geomagnetic Storms. extreme values of Bz and the dips in the disturbance ‘H’ component. The circled points in the figure indicate the points of coincidence between intense negative Bz peaks (viz.-31.1 nT at 0625 UT, -48.2nT at 0630 UT and -21.1 nT at 0835UT) and the Alibag ‘H’ minimum values (viz. -182.9 nT, -214.1 nT and -212.3 nT). Fig. 4. Interplanetary magnetic field parameters (ACE) of the magnetic storm events during October 29-31, 2003. Vertical dashed lines indicate arrival of the first shock at ACE at 06:00 UT on October 29 and the second shock at 16:00 UT on October 30, 2003 respectively. The arrows show SSC’s at Alibag (ABG) and Tirunelveli (TIR) at 06:12UT on October 29 and 16:20 UT on October 30, 2003. The ground magnetic field data are time shifted by The storm development in this event clearly follows a 12 min. to correspond to the interplanetary shock arrival on October 29, double storm signature (Kamide et al., 1998). However, 2003. The shaded portion marked by slanted lines show intervals of starting from 1800 UT onwards sharp and steady southward northward By and the dotted portion represents southward Bz. (Alex et al., 2006). Bz persists for almost 6 hours leading to an intense geomagnetic storm occurrence with a peak intensity of ~350 The linear prediction filter method has been employed to nT in Dst at 2400 UT. A slow recovery of the storm followed study the response of the magnetosphere to the fluctuations in when a steady rotation of the Bz field occurred. The main the solar wind energy input (Clauer, 1986; Bargatze et al., phase of 30 October magnetic storm started rather sharply at 1985; McPherron et al., 1988). The AL index (auroral low, a 1800 UT when the Bz turned southwards and increased to high latitude index) was used as a measure of substorm about –32 nT and produced a Dst ~ -400 nT. Abrupt activity and the product Vsw Bs (where Vsw is the solar wind turning of the Bz to northward direction around 2100 UT speed and Bs is the magnitude of southward IMF) as the resulted in the beginning of the recovery. measure of the solar wind energy input. Two dominant peaks were found, the first at a time lag of approximately 20 min 6 Lakhina et al: On Magnetic Storms and Substorms and the second at approximately 1 hour for weak to of 29 October 2003. A lag time of 25 minutes for the Alibag data is used (Alex et al., 2006). moderately strong geomagnetic activity. The 20 min lag was interpreted as response of the magnetosphere-ionosphere system to solar wind driving, and the 1-hour time lag as the loading –unloading cycle of the substorm (Baker, 1992). In view of this, the plot shown in Fig. 6 strongly suggest that the 25 minutes lag is response time of the magnetosphere- equatorial ionosphere to the interplanetary driving. Fig. 6 depicts the variation in interplanetary magnetic field parameters |B|, By and Bz from ACE/MAG and the variation in the horizontal component of the magnetic field at Tirunelveli and Alibag for the intense storm event during 20 –21 November 2003 (Alex et al., 2006). The shock associated with the M class solar flare on 18 November impacted the magnetopause on 20 November and gave rise to the SSC enhancement of 40nT at Alibag and 100nT at Tirunelveli around 08:03 UT. The IMF Bz turned southward and attained large values of nearly -50 nT for several hours. This lead to an intense main phase with Dst ~ -500 nT. The recovery started with the sharp rotation of Bz to northward at 1800 UT as evident in Fig. 6. To summarize the main results of October-November 2003 storm events, it is observed that very intense CME associated with 28 October 2003 solar activity failed to produce an equally intense magnetic storm but produced pulsating variations of the ground magnetic field on 29 October 2003, which followed the corresponding Fig. 6. Interplanetary magnetic field parameters (ACE) during the magnetic fluctuating IMF behind the large pressure gradient of the storm events on November 20-21, 2003. Vertical dashed line indicates the shock at 07:40UT. The arrows show the occurrence of SSC at 08:03UT at shock, with a time lag of 25 min; this could be identified as Alibag and Tirunelveli. The one minute data of SYM ‘H’ and the magnetic the response time of the magnetosphere to the interplanetary field data of the ‘H’ component of Alibag and Tirunelveli are time shifted by driving. The intensity of the storm is controlled mainly by the 23 min (Alex et al., 2006). magnitude of the peak of the southward component of the IMF Bz and its duration rather than the speed of the CME 5. Magnetic storms and society ejecta. That is why large southward IMF lasting for a longer In modern times, our society is relying more and more on time gave rise to more intense magnetic storm on 20 technology that is affected in some way by conditions in the November 2003 despite the low CME speed. space environment. Space weather refers to conditions on the Sun and in the solar wind, magnetosphere, ionosphere and thermosphere that can influence the performance and reliability of space-borne and ground-based technological systems and can endanger human life or health. Magnetic storms form a major component of space weather. The most dramatic events on the Sun, in so far as space weather effects are concerned, are solar flares and coronal mass ejections during solar maximum. During the descending phase of the solar cycle, the high speed streams emanating from coronal holes can cause recurrent geomagnetic storms at 27-day interval. Intense and super-intense geomagnetic storms create hostile space weather conditions that can generate many hazards to the spacecraft as well as technological systems at ground. Some adverse effects of intense magnetic storms are life-threatening power outages, failure and malfunctioning of satellite instruments due to deep dielectric charging by relativistic or “killer” electrons. Several NASA mission Fig. 5. Scatter plot using disturbance ‘H’ component (5 minute) of the reported loss of Instrument data, and 2 spacecraft reported magnetic field at Alibag and the corresponding interplanetary magnetic field parameter Bz for the time period of 0615-1400UT during the magnetic storm instrument damage during 2003 Halloween (i.e., 30-31 ILWS WORKSHOP 2006, GOA, FEBRUARY 19-24, 2006 October 2003) storms. The Swedish power grid reported M. W. Chen, M. Schulz and L. R. Lyons, “Simulations of phase space distributions of stormtime proton ring current”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. failure of transformer at some stations for several hours. 99, pp. 5745-5759, 1994. C. R. Clauer, “The technique of linear prediction filters applied to studies of solar wind-magnetosphere coupling”, in Solar Wind- Magnetosphere The energy dissipated in the atmosphere during intense Coupling, Y. Kamide and J. A.Slavin, Eds. Terra Sci. Pub. Co., Tokyo, magnetic storms produces quick expansion of the 1986, pp. 39-57. J. W. Dungey, “Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones”, Phys. thermosphere which give rise to extra drag on the low earth Rev. Lett. vol. 6, pp. 47-48, 1961. orbiting satellite leading to its reduction of life time or even M. C. Fok, T. E. Moore and D. C. Delcourt, “Modeling of inner plasma sheet death. Further, intense magnetic storms can give rise to and ring current during substorms”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 104, pp. satellite communication failure, data loss, and Navigational 14557-14569, 1999. M. C. Fok, T. E. Moore and M. E. Greenspan, “Ring current development errors. There can also be severe errors in GPS measurements during storm main phase” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 101, pp. 15311-15322, and geophysical surveys. Adverse space weather conditions 1996. during intense magnetic storm can pose threat to astronauts W. D. Gonzalez, J. A. Joselyn, Y. Kamide, H. W. Kroehl, G. Rostoker and and jetliner passenger due to both high radiation dosage and B. T. Tsurutani, V. W. Vasyliunas, “What is geomagnetic storm?” J. Geophys. Res. vol. 99, pp. 5771-5792, 1994. loss of contact with the ground station. Several trans-polar R. Hodgson, “On a curious appearance seen in the Sun”, Mon. Not. R. flights were cancelled during October-November 2003 Astron. Soc., vol. XX, p. 15, 1859. intense magnetic storms. There can be malfunctioning or R. B. Horne and R. M. Thorne, “Convective instabilities of electromagnetic even permanent damage to spacecraft, e.g., one Japanese ion cyclotron waves in the outer magnetosphere”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 99, pp. 17259-17273, 1994. spacecraft was probably damaged beyond salvage during J. D. Huba, N. T. Gladd and K. Papadopoulos, “The lower- hybrid-drift October-November 2003 magnetic storms. The instability as a source of anamolous resistivity for magnetic field line geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) during intense reconnection”, Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 41, pp. 125-126, 1977. magnetic storms can damage power transmission lines and T. Iyemori and D. R. K. Rao, “Decay of the Dst field of geomagnetic disturbance after substorm onset and its implication to storm-substorm corrode the long pipelines and cables. The most intense relation”, Ann. Geophysicae, vol. 14, pp. 608-618, 1996. magnetic storm in the recorded history of the Earth occurred Y. Kamide, N. Yokoyama, W. D. Gonzalez, B. T. Tsurutani, I. A. Daglis, A. on 1-2 September 1859 (Tsurutani et al., 2003b) and was Brakke and S. Masuda, “Two-step development of geomagnetic driven by a huge solar flare on August 31, 1859 (Carrington storms”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 103, pp. 6917-6921, 1998. Y. Kamide, “Interplanetary and magnetospheric electric fields during 1859, Hodgson 1859). The main phase depression of the H geomagnetic storms: what is more important, steady-state fields or component of the magnetic field (or simply SYM- H) fluctuating fields?”, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., vol. 63, pp. 413-420, recorded at Colaba Observatory was about –1600 nT 2001. (Tsurutani et al., 2003b). If such a super storm were to occur Y. Kamide, “Is substorm occurrence a necessary condition for a magnetic storm?”, J. Geomagn. Geoelectr., vol. 44, pp. 109-117, 1992. today it would have catastrophic effect on the technological L. W. Klein and L. F. Burlaga, “Magnetic clouds at 1 AU”, J. Geophys. Res., system in space and on ground that are being used by the vol. 87, pp. 613-624, 1982. modern society! A. P. Kakad, G. S. Lakhina and S. V. Singh, “Shear flow instability in plasma sheet region”, Planet. Space Sci., vol. 51, pp. 177-181, 2003. G. S. Lakhina and Satyavir Singh, “Role of plasma instabilities driven by Acknowledgement. Thanks are due to Council of Scientific Oxygen ions during magnetic storms and substorms”, in Disturbances and Industrial Research, Government India for providing in Geospace: The Storm-Substorm Relationship, vol. 142, A. S. support to GSL under the Emeritus Scientist Scheme. The Sharma, Y. Kamide and G. S. Lakhina, Eds. Geophys. Monogr. Ser., authors acknowledge CELIAS/MTOF experiment on SOHO, AGU, Washington D.C., 2003, pp. 131-141. a joint ESA and NASA mission. We thank the ACE G. S. Lakhina and B. T. Tsurutani, “Helicon modes driven by ionospheric O+ ions in the plasma sheet region”, Geophys. Res. Letts., vol. 24, pp. SWEPAM instrument team and the ACE Science Center for 1463-1466, 1997. providing the ACE data. We acknowledge the information G. S. Lakhina and K. Schindler, “The effects on plasma sheet boundary and from the Space Environment Center, Boulder, CO, National plasma mantle flow on the ion tearing instability”, J. Geophys. Res. vol. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Dept. 93, pp. 8591-8601, 1988. W. Liu, “Physics of the explosiv growth phase: Ballooning instability of Commerce. We also thank WDC, Kyoto for providing the revisited”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 102, pp. 4927-4931, 1997. preliminary Quick look AE, AL and AU, Dst and SYM-H A. T. Y. Lui, “A brief review of space weather disturbances”, TAO, vol. 14, indices. pp. 221-240, 2003. A. T. Y. Lui, et al., “A cross-field current instability for substorm expansions”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 96, pp. 11389-11401, 1991. References C. E. McIlwain, “Substorm injection boundaries”, in Magnetospheric S. Alex, S. Mukherjee and G. S. Lakhina, “Geomagnetic signatures during Physics, B. M. McCormac, Ed. D. Reidel, Hingham, Mass., 1974, pp. the intense geomagnetic storms of 29 October & 20 November 2003”, 143-154. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys., vol. 68, in press, 2006. R. L. McPherron, D. N. Baker, L. F. Bargatze, C. R. Clauer and R. E. D. N. Baker, “Driven and Unloading aspects of magnetospheric substorms”, Holzer, “IMF control of geomagnetic activity”, Adv. Space Res., vol. 8, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Substorms (ICS-1), pp. 71–86, 1988. ESA SP-335, 1992, pp. 185–191. S. Ohtani, and T. Tamao, “Does the ballooning instability trigger substorms L. F. Bargatze, D. N. Baker, R. L. McPherron and E. W. Hones, Jr., in the near-Earth magnetotail?”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 98, pp. 19369- “Magnetospheric impulse response for many levels of geomagnetic 19379, 1993. activity”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 90, pp. 6387–6394, 1985. G. Rostoker, “Physics of magnetic storms”, in Magnetic Storms, vol. 98, B. R. C. Carrington, “Description of a singular appearance seen in the Sun on T. Tsurutani, W. D. Gonzalez, Y. Kamide, and J. K. Arballo, Eds. September 1, 1859”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., vol. XX, pp. 13, 1859. Geophys. Monogr., AGU, Washington D C, 1997, pp. 149-160. K., A. Schindler, “Theory of the substorm mechanism”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 70, pp. 2803-2810, 1974. 8 Lakhina et al: On Magnetic Storms and Substorms A. S. Sharma, Y. Kamide and G. S. Lakhina, “Disturbances in Geospace: The Storm-Substorm Relationship”, Geophys.Monogr. Ser., vol. 142, AGU, Washington D.C., 2003. S. V. Singh, A. P. Kakad, R. V. Reddy, and G. S. Lakhina, “Low-frequency instabilities due to energetic oxygen ions in the ring current region”, J. Plasma Phys., vol. 70, pp. 613-623, 2004. S. V. Singh, A. P. Kakad and G. S. Lakhina, “Quasi-electrostatic instabilities excited by the energetic Oxygen ions in the ring current region”, Phys. Plasmas, vol. 12, 012903, 2005. W. Sun and S. I. Akasofu, “On the formation of the storm-time ring current belt”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 105, pp. 5411-5418, 2000. W. Sun, W. Y. Xu and S. I. Akasofu, “Mathematical separation of directly driven and unloading components in the ionospheric equivalent currents during substorms” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 103, pp. 11695- 11700, 1998. B. T. Tsurutani, W. D. Gonzalez, F. Guarnieri, Y. Kamide, X. Zhoua, J. K. Arballo, “Are high-intensity long-duration continuous AE activity (HILDCAA) events substorm expansion events?”, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., vol. 66, pp. 167-176, 2004. B. T. Tsurutani, X.-Y. Zhou, and W. D. Gonzalez, “A lack of substorm expansion phases during magnetic storms induced by magnetic cloud”, in Disturbances in Geospace: The Storm-Substorm Relationship, vol. 142, A. S. Sharma, Y. Kamide and G. S. Lakhina, Eds. Geophys. Monogr. Ser. AGU, Washington D.C., 2003a. B. T. Tsurutani and W. D. Gonzalez, “The interplanetary causes of magnetic storms; A review”. in Magnetic Storms, vol. 98, B. T. Tsurutani, W. D. Gonzalez, Y. Kamide and J. K. Arballo, Eds. Geophys. Monogr. Ser., AGU, Washington D.C., 1997, pp. 77-90. B. T. Tsurutani, W. D. Gonzalez,, G. S. Lakhina and S. Alex, “The extreme magnetic storm of 1-2 September 1859”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 108, pp. 1268, doi:10.1029/2002JA009504, 2003b. G. Vichare, S. Alex and G. S. Lakhina, “Some characteristics of intense geomagnetic storms and their energy budget”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 110, A03204, doi:10.1029/2004JA010418, 2005. N. Yokoyama, and Y. Kamide, “Statistical nature of geomagnetic storms”, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 102, A7, pp. 14215-14222, 1997. View publication stats