JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 99, NO.

A4, PAGES 5771-5792, APRIL 1, 1994

What is a geomagneticstorm?
W. D. Gonzalez,•,2 j. A. Joselyn,3 y. Kamide,4 H. W. Kroehl,
G. Ros•oker,• B. T. Tsuru•ani,7 andV. M. Vasyliunas8

Abstract. After a brief review of magnetosphericand interplanetary phenomena

for intervals with enhancedsolar wind-magnetosphereinteraction, an attempt is
made to definea geomagneticstorm as an interval of time when a sufficientlyintense
and long-lastinginterplanetary convectionelectric field leads, through a substantial
energizationin the magnetosphere-ionosphere system, to an intensifiedring current
sufficientlystrong to exceed some key thresholdof the quantifying storm time
Dst index. The associatedstorm/substormrelationshipproblemis alsoreviewed.
Although the physicsof this relationship does not seem to be fully understood
at this time, basic and fairly well establishedmechanismsof this relationship are
presentedand discussed.Finally, toward the advancementof geomagneticstorm
research, some recommendationsare given concerningfuture improvementsin
monitoring existing geomagneticindices as well as the solar wind near Earth.

1. Introduction
knowledgeof magnetosphericphysicsusing spacecraft,
The importance of studying geomagneticstorms is as compared to older epochswhen most of that knowl-
basically twofold. One refers to their academic aspectedge had to come from ground observations.In addi-
of being considereda central part of geophysics.The tion, past attempts to formulate definitions for storms
other involvespractical aspects that in some casescan were restricted only to the near-Earth environment, the
represent a particular concern for mankind. ionosphereand magnetosphere.However,with the sub-
For 30 years or more magnetosphericscientistshave sequent accumulation of information obtained in the
been studying storms under the simple assumption interplanetary medium, critical aspects of these defi-
(originallyproposedby SydneyChapman)that storms nitions now involve diversefindings related to the solar
are simply a collectionof substormsand that by under- wind dynamics[e.g.,Burton et al., 1975; Gonzalezand
standing the "unit" of fundamental energy injection, Tsurutani, 1987; Tsurutani and Gonzalez, 1987].
one could understand the whole. Motivated by an interest in trying to find unifying
New interest in understanding such a classical as- conceptsabout the geomagneticstorm and the long-
sumption for the definition of the geomagneticstorm standingproblemof storm/substormrelationship,the
and of its relationship to substormshas been recently authors of this review paper met at the National Insti-
pursued[e.g., tfamide, 1992; Feldstein, 1992]. The tute for SpaceResearchof Brazil (INPE), at ShoJos6
main reason behind such an interest is our modern dos Campos, Sho Paulo, during the interval of Novem-
ber 5-8, 1991. The results obtained in this meeting,
together with further elaboration, are presentedin this
l lnstituto de PesquisasEspaciais, S. J. dos Campos, S•o paper in the following sequence.
Paulo, Brazil. Section 2 is devoted to historical aspectsof geomag-
9'Now at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- netic storm research,as based on ionosphericand mag-
tion/Space EnvironmentalLaboratory,Boulder, Colorado.
netospheric parameters. In section 3 the interplane-
3National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Space
Environmental Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado.
tary origin of storms is addressed.A brief review fol-
4Solar-TerrestrialEnvironmentalLaboratory,NagoyaUniver- lows on solar wind-magnetosphere coupling, particu-
sity, Toyokawa, Japan. larly applied to storm intervals. Then, for complete-
5National Oceanicand AtmosphericAdministration/National ness,the seasonaland solar cycle distribution of storms
Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, Colorado. is briefly considered. Section 4 reviews basic aspects
6Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, of the storm/substormrelationshipproblem.In section
Alberta, Canada. 5, a discussionabout additional mechanismsthat con-
?Jet PropulsionLaboratory,Pasadena,Cahfornia. tribute to ring current intensification as well as about
8Max Planck Institut fiir Aeronomie, Katlenburg-Lindau, basic mechanismsfor ring current decay is given. A
Germany.
brief review on the relationship of Dst to other geo-
magneticindicesfollows. Section6 givessummary con-
Copyright 1994 by the American Geophysical Union.
cepts on geomagneticstorms and on their relationship
Paper number 93JA02867. to substorms. A definition for a geomagneticstorm is
0148-0227/94/93JA-02867505.00 suggested.Finally, in section 7 recommendationscon-
5771
5772 GONZALEZ ET AL.: REVIEW PAPER

cerningfuture improvementsin monitoring existingge- HOURLY DstVALUESFOR THE JULY 12-16,

1982 STORM
omagnetic indices as well as the solar wind near the
Earth are provided.
o

2. Geomagnetic Storm -50

2.1. Historical Development and Critique of

Existing Definitions
-150
Episodesof extraordinary fluctuations in the Earth's
magneticfield were denotedas stormsin the mid-1800s.
It was recognizedthat over the major part of Earth, the
-250
principal averagefeature of a magnetic storm is an un-
mistakable decreaseof the horizontal intensity and its
subsequent
recovery[e.g.,ChapmanandBarrels,1940].
I I I I
This decreasein intensity is now known to be due to -350
12 13 14 15 16
an enhancementof the trapped magnetosphericparticle
population. Drifts due to magnetic field gradient and Figure 1. Great magneticstorm of July 12-16, 1982.
curvatureas well as to gyration orbit effectslead to the The solar wind-pressurecorrectedDst* reachedpeak
values around-440 nT.
ions movingfrom midnight toward dusk and electrons
from midnight toward dawn, giving an overall ring of
current. A comprehensiveanalysis of storm morphol- turbancein a given 3-hour interval of the universaltime
ogywasundertakenby $ugiuraand Chapman [1960], day [e.g., Rostoker,1972; Menvielleand BerthelJer,
who assigneda numericalintensity index to individual 1991].The A indexis a 24-houraverageof convertedK
storms by measuringthe differencein daily mean val- index readingswith a range from 0-400. A global com-
ues of the horizontal field at 26 mostly middle and low posite of K and A indices,the Kp and Ap indices,have
geomagneticlatitude observatories.On the basisof this been made available since 1932 by the Institute of Geo-
index, they divided their collection of storms into three physicsin Gottingen, Germany,and are widely usedfor
sets: weak, moderate, and great. researchand operational purposes.Other compositesof
Reorganizinglow-latitude ground-baseddata to mea- global K indices,especiallythe aa, An, and As indices
sure the intensityof the ring current, Sugiura [1964] produced by the Centre De Rechearcheen Physique de
publishedhourly valuesof the averageglobal variation l'Environment-Centre National de la Recherche Scien-
of the low-latitudeH component(H, D, and Z are tifiqueof France,are alsouseful. (For a descriptionof
the vector componentsof the magneticfield at ground- variousgeomagnetic indices,see,Mayaud [1980]). K
based observatories:H, horizontal; Z, vertical; and D, index variations are difficult to interpret physically be-
the dip-anglebetweenthefieldvectorandH) for the In- cause they can be caused by any geophysicalcurrent
ternational GeophysicalYears. This index, called Dst, system including magnetopausecurrents, field-aligned
has been continued since then and is presently com- currents, and the auroral electrojets. Nevertheless,the
piled by the World Data Center C for Geomagnetismin Kp indicesfor the evaluationof activity have been more
Kyoto, Japan. IAGA Bulletin40 [Sugiuraand Kamei, widely used than Dst becausethey are generally avail-
1991] containshourly and summaryDst valuesfrom able in final form only a few weeksafter the date of ob-
1957 to 1986. The Dst index for July 12-16, 1982, servation. Dst requires more analysis to produce and
showsthe largest storm during solar cycle 21. This is at times has been delayed by years. However, this time
plotted in Figure 1, in which the relatively sharp de- delay is not intrinsic to the index, and modern magne-
crease in the H component and the subsequentslow tometer observationsand communication methods per-
recovery are clearly seen. The principal characteris- mit Dst to be evaluated in near real time.
tic of a geomagneticstorm-Dst representationis the Somegeomagneticstorms,especiallythe largestones,
"mainphase"(seebelow),namely,the intervalof large begin with a suddenimpulse which signalsthe arrival
decrease of Dst. of an interplanetary shock structure. This generally
Early studies of the ionospheresuggestedthat the coincideswith the onset of a period of increasedram
level of disturbanceof the geomagneticfield wasa useful pressure(the initial phase) that is followedby sus-
proxy for the level of disturbanceof other geospace phe- tainedsouthward interplanetary fields(the mainphase)
nomena.For example,Matsushita [1959]studiediono- and then by a return to normalconditions(the recov-
sphericstormsby selectingintervalsof geomagneticdis- ery phase). Suchsuddenimpulsesprecedinggeomag-
turbancebasedon the Ap index(seebelow);if Ap was netic storms are called storm sudden commencements;
50 or more,the geomagnetic stormwas "strong."Similar these events are cataloged in Solar Geophysical Data
but nonstandarizedrulesfor identifying stormscontinue (publishedmonthly), and IAGA Bulletin 32. Lists of
to the present. Geomagneticactivity is classifiedby size SSCs have been used as proxies for lists of geomag-
usually depending on a variety of summaries of the K netic storms. However,suchusageis ill-advised because
index, a number between 0 and 9 scaledfrom the range the criteria that determine whether a sudden impulse
of observed fluctuations that indicates the level of dis- should be a storm sudden commencementis qualita-
 GONZALEZ ET AL.' REVIEW PAPER 5773

tive and vague. Lenient and inconsistentinterpreta- The generalrelationshipof energybalancefor the ring
tions of the levels of geomagneticactivity prerequisite current is given by
for storms have led to confusion in the literature and
suggestions
to standardizethe terminology[Joselynand z(t)
dt
=U(t)-E(t)/r, (2)
Tsurutani, 1990; Kamide and Joselyn,1991; Gonzalez
et al., 1992]. Becauseinterplanetaryshock struc-
tures are neither sufficient nor necessaryfor geomag- whereU(t) is the rate of energyinput into the ring cur-
netic storm occurrence or development, their presence rent and r is the decay time. As discussedin section
is not a prerequisitefor defining geomagneticstorms. 5, r is a complex function of several types of losspro-
cesses.Usingequation(1), equation(2) canbe written
in terms of Dst* as
2.2. Dst Index and Magnetospheric Parameters
The principal definingproperty of a magnetic storm dDst*(t)
dt
: Q(t) - Dst* (t)/r (3)
is the creation of an enhancedring current, formed by
ions(mostnotablyby protonsand oxygenions) and with Q(t)- 2.5 x 102•U(t)in Gaussian units.
electronsin the 10-300 keV energy range, located usu- When there is no energyinput, as duringthe (ideal)
ally between2 to 7 RE and producinga magneticfield recoveryphaseof the storm, equation(2) has the fol-
disturbancewhich, at the equator, is opposite in direc- lowing simple solution:
tion to the Earth's dipolefield. The strength of this dis-
turbancefield is (approximately)givenby the Dessler- E(t) - Eoe-(•-•ø)/•', (4)
Parker-Sckopke relationship[DesslerandParker, 1959;
from which one can obtain reasonably accurate values
Sckopke,1966]:
for the decay time r.
A formal solutionfor equation(2), or equation(3),
z)t* (t)/So - (1) can be written as
where Dst* is the field decreasedue to the ring cur-
rent, B0 is the averageequatorialsurfacefield, E(t) is
the total energy of the ring current particles, and Em
(= 8 x 1024ergs)is the total magnetic
energyof the
geomagnetic field outsidethe Earth. (For a complete This solution is particularly useful when the input
review,seeCaromllanoand Siscoe[1973]). function Q is known analytically. Otherwise, equation
Dst* is the measured Dst value after a correction due
to magnetopausecurrentsis made. Dst needsto incor-
(2) has to be solvednumericallyas has beendoneby
severalauthors[e.g., Burton et al., 1975; Gonzalezet
porate also a correctionfactor due to induced currents
al., 1989;Pisarskij et al., 1989]. Theseauthorshave
in the solidearth [ e.g., Langeland Estes, 1983;Stern, assumedthat the energy input function can be identi-
1984]. Other possiblecontributionsto Dst from ad-
fied with the magnetosphericenergyinput as obtained
ditional(ionospheric,
field-aligned,
tail, etc.) currents from reconnectionat the frontside magnetopause,also
have not been quantified as yet.
known asthe "couplingfunction."A brief reviewon cou-
With the correction due to magnetopause currents
the relation between Dst and Dst* is usually writ-
pling functionsis given in section3.
One particularly difficult problem that remains un-
ten [e.g., Burton et al., 1975; Gonzalezet al., 1989;
settledwith respectto the solutionof equation(3) is
Feldstein, 1992]as
that the lossrate parameter r is as yet poorly known.
The ring current particle loss rate dependsupon the
Dst* - Dst -bp •/2 + c,
particle species,energy, pitch angle, and L. The loss
where p is the storm time solar wind ram pressure,ob- rate parameter r is thereforean averageover the whole
tainedas nrn+V 2 ( n andV beingthesolarwindden- ring. Clearly, the value of r is changingcontinuously
sity andspeed,respectively, andm+ the protonmass), during the magneticstorm. However,it has been nec-
b is a proportionalityfactor, and c is the quiet time solar essaryto attempt to derive an averagevalue for analyt-
wind ram pressurecontribution.Typically, b - 0.2 nT ical purposes.Someauthors[e.g.,Burton et al., 1975;
/(eV cm-a)•/2 andc = 20 nT. DuringlargepressureFeldsteinet al., 1984]have assumeda constantr for
variations,Dst* can be considerablydifferentfrom Dst. all possible values of Dst. More recently, Vasyliunas
Gonzalez[1992]and Tsurutaniet al. [1992a]havere- [1987], Gonzalezet al. [1989], and Prigancovaand
ported the existenceof storm eventswith more than a Feldstein [1992]havesuggested that a variabler needs
100% difference between Dst* and Dst. to be incorporated(notethat equations(4) and (5) as-
As we cannotefrom equation(1), the field decrease sumer constant). Typical r valuesof 5 to 10 hours
is linearly related to the total energyof the ring current that are common during the recoveryphasehave been
particles. Thus the planetary Dst* index is used as a shown not to be appropriate at earlier times, particu-
practical measureof the total particle energyinjected larly at the peak of the main phaseof intensestormsfor
into the inner magnetosphereand hencethe intensityof which much shorter decay times, of about i hour, need
the magnetic storm. to be adopted. However, decay times as short as 0.5
5774 GONZALEZ ET AL' REVIEW PAPER

hour or less do not seem to be appropriate unless the rather the than high V that is the dominant part of the
stormis very intense[Gonzalezet al., 1989;Prigancova electricfield [Tsurutaniet al., 1992b]. As mentioned
and Feldstein,1992]. below, the electric field seemsto be modulated by the
solarwind ram pressurewhen suchpressurechangesbe-
2.3. Classification of Storms by Intensity: The come important. Since this pressureterm dependson
Question of Threshold
the solar wind density p, it has been reported that, be-
By virtue of the name, storms are expected to be sidesBs and V, the factor p alsoplaysan important role
extraordinary disturbances. At what level does a dis- in the ring currentintensification [Smithet al., 1986].
turbance becomeextraordinary? The range of observed A general relationship between the intensity of the
Dst is approximately +100 nT to -600 nT. Quiet time Bs field and its duration, AT, as a function of storm
(undisturbed)conditionsare represented by a Dst in- intensity, Dst, has not been found to date. How-
dex of 0, but this is not typical. For example, for ever, Gonzalezand Tsurutani [1987]referringto in-
the years 1976-1986, the median Dst was between tense storms with peak Dst _< -100 nT for the in-
-20 nT and-10 nT. The Magsat field analysis,based terval of 1978-1979, have suggestedthreshold values
on quiet days in 1979, suggesteda baseline value of of Bs _> 10 nT and AT _> 3 hours. Also, prelimi-
about -20 nT. Thus an "enhanced" ring current(neg- nary studiesof moderate storms with -100 nT < peak
ative valuesof Dst) is ordinaryand doesnot necessar- Dst _<-50 nT (for the sameintervalof 1978-1979),
ily represent storm-level conditions. The distribution confirm earlier suggestionsmade by Russell et al.
of observedhourly values offers some guidance. Dur- [1974]for associatedthresholdvaluesof Bs _> 5 nT
ing 1976-1986, approximately25% of all valueswere and AT > 2 hours. Table i shows these threshold val-
more negative than -30 nT, approximately 8% were uesat an 80% occurrencelevel. As statedin this table,
more negative than -50 nT, and approximately 1% the threshold conditionsfor small storms are equivalent
were more negative than -100 nT. These convenient to those expected for typical substorms.
breakpoints can be used to place given disturbancesin
relative context. Following the terminology of Sugiura Table 1. (Bz, AT) Thresholdsfor Stormsat 80% Oc-
and Chapman,great (or intense)stormsare thosewith currenceLevel (ISEE 3 Interval' August 1978 to De-
peak Dst of-100 nT or less, moderate storms fall be- cember1979)
tween -50 nT and -100 nT, and weak storms are those
Dst, nT Bz, nT AT, hours
between -30 nT and -50 nT. For comparison,lessthan
1% of the Kp valueswere 7 or larger,and lessthan 10% Intense -- 100 --10 3
were 5 or larger. Moderate -50 -5 2
Small -30 -3 1
(typical substorm)
3. Role of the Interplanetary Medium in
the Origin of Storms' The IMF Bs
Component
3.1. Origins of Bs
The primary causesof geomagneticstorms at Earth The intense interplanetary magnetic fields can be
are strong dawn-to-dusk electric fields associatedwith thought of as being associated with essentially two
the passageof southward directed interplanetary mag- parts of a high-speedstream, the intrinsic fields, and
netic fields, Bs, past the Earth for sufficientlylong in- plasmaassociated with the coronalejecta(calleddriver
tervals of time. The solar wind energy transfer mech- gasfields),and the shockedand compressed fieldsand
anism is magnetic reconnectionbetween the IMF and plasma due to the collision of the high-speedstream
the Earth's magnetic field. The energy transfer effi- with the slowersolar wind precedingit. In the latter
ciencyis of the order of 10% during intensemagnetic case,the compressionis related to the strength of the
storms[Gonzalezet al., 1989].Viscousinteraction,the shockand thus to the speed of the high-speedstream
other prime energy transfer mechanismproposed, has relativeto the upstream(slow)solarwind. The higher
been shownto be only < 1% efficientduring intense the relative velocity,the strongerthe shockand the field
northwarddirectedIMFs [Tsurutaniet al., 1992a]. compression.If the shock runs into a trailing portion
The electric field is composedof two factors: the so- of a high-speedstream,precedingit, exceptionallyhigh
lar wind velocity V and the southward IMF. It has been magnetic fields may result. So far very few stormsfrom
empiricallyshown[Gonzalezand Tsurutani,1987]that interplanetary events of this type have been reported
intense storms with peak Dst _<-100 nT are primar- [Zhao, 1992].
ily caused by large Bs _> 10 nT fields with dura- Within the driver gas there are sometimesstrong
tion greater than 3 hours. Although such high fields N-S magneticfield components.This occursprimarily
are considerablygreater than typical field magnitudes in the low/3 plasma region, where the magneticfields
in the quiet solarwind (5 nT), [King, 1986]and are are relativelyfreeof discontinuitiesand wavesand angu-
thereforeoften associatedwith greater than averageso- lar changes occurslowly[Zwicklet al., 1983 Tsurutani
lar wind velocities(high-speedstreams),it has been et al., 1988]. Cboeet al. [1992]founda beta rangeof
demonstrated that it is the extraordinarily high Bs 0.03 to 0.8 with ~ 0.1 typical. This region of spaceis
 GONZALEZ ET AL.' REVIEW PAPER 5775

often characterized by bidirectional electron or proton SHEATH FIELDS

streaming[Goslinget al., 1987].It is thoughtthat this a) Shockedsouthwardfields

field region is only a portion of the driver gas. There Tsurutani et al., 1988

may be other regionsof the coronalejecta that have not

beenidentifiedyet (seeCboeet al. [1992] concerning
an outerHe++ shell). Only about10%of drivergases
b) Shockedheliospheric
currentsheets
have theselarge N-S directionalvariations. Tsurutani et al., 1984
These regionsof large N-S field variations are called
magneticclouds,after Klein and Burlaga [1982]. A
schematic representingthis original idea is shown in
Figure 2e. Clouds are found not only within high-speed
streams but also in the quiet solar wind. A more recent
c) Turbulence,
wavesordiscontinuities tt,
field configurationof magneticcloudshas beenproposed
by Marubashi [1986]and others. This latest idea is
that the field configurationis a giant flux rope, with
d) Drapedmagneticfields
the force-freefields generatedby currentsflowing along Zwan and Wolf, 1976
the magnetic axis. The magnetic configurationfor the
other driver gas events is not known at this time. It
is possiblethat they could have magnetic tongue con-
figurations, that is, long extended fields that are still McComas et al., 1989
attachedto the Sun,as proposedby Gold [1962].
There are a variety of causesof southward IMFs in
DRIVER GAS FIELDS
the high-speedstream sheath region. These are also
schematically illustrated in Figure 2. First, if there e) Magneticcloud
is a preexistingsouthwardcomponentupstreamof the Klein and Burlaga,1982
shock, shock compressionwill intensify this component
(Figure2a). As thesefieldsconvecttowardthe driver
gasregion,the drapingeffectwill intensifythe fieldsfur-
Fluxrope
ther(Figure2d) asdiscussed
by Zwanand Wolf [1976] Marubashi, 1986
for the Earth's magnetosheathfields. This drapingwill
occur whether there is shock compressionor not. An-
other type of field draping, proposedby McComas et
al., [1989], createsnorthwardand southwardsheath Magnetictongue
Gold, 1962
componentseven though the quiet solar wind field is
near the (solarmagnetospheric)
equatorialplane. As
illustrated, the fields above and below the midpoint of
Figure 2. The variousinterplanetaryfeatures that
the CME have oppositeN-S components.If the hello- wereassociatedwith large-amplitude (< -10 nT), long-
sphericcurrentsheathis swept up by the shock,distor- duration(> 3h) B, fieldsforthe 10intensestorms(peak
tions are postulated to lead to strong N-S components Dst < -100 nT) of the August1978to December1979
(Figure 2b). This wasthe casefor one of the CDAW ISEE 3 interval. They are groupedin two broad cate-
6 substormevents[Tsurutaniet al., 1984].Turbulent gories:Sheathfields and Driver gasfields.
waves and discontinuities can also be associated with
strongnorthwardandsouthwardIMFs (Figure2c).
The types of Bs fields illustrated in Figure 2 have ably the finding of this different type of frequent and
been inferred from studiesof intense storms during the intense substorms, during HILDCAA events, was one
ISEE 3 interval of August 1978 to December 1979. of the main motivations for trying to reformulate the
Figure 3 showsan exampleof an intensestorm (Au- questionsof what is a geomagneticstorm and what is
gust 28, 1978) whichhas a southwardfield of a mag- the storm/substorm relationship).
netic cloudtype in the By directionand an associ- To date, the interplanetary causesof stormsof all in-
ated large Bs excursion. Figure 3 also showsone of tensities are not understood. Gonzalez and Tsurutani
the high-intensity,long-duration,continuousAE activ- [1987]and Goslinget al. [1991]haveshownthat for
ity (HILDCAA) events(indicatedby the horizontalbar intensestorms( e.g., with intensitiesof peak Dst _<
on the AE panel)studiedby Tsurutaniand Gonzalez -100 nT) about 90% are causedby southwardmag-
[1987]for the sameISEE 3 interval. Theseeventsare netic fields within high-speedstreams led by shocks.
characterized by substorm events with similar ampli- Tsurutani et al. [1988]have shownthat half the
tudes as thosethat tend to occur during intensestorms, casesare causedby driver gasfields and half by sheath
although with shorter durations. Another interesting fields. As the storm intensity threshold is decreased,
characteristicis that in this case,substorms,although high-speedstreams becomeless important. They are
intense,do not seemto contribute much to the ring cur- only involvedin about 45% of stormswith -100 nT <
rent buildupas they do duringintensestorms.(Prob- peak Dst _<-50 nT and in about 23% of stormswith
5776 GONZALEZ ET AL' REVIEW PAPER

lOOO

Vsw
,kmS
q 600
200
4O

N,cn• 20
o
4o
I BI,nT
o
2o

By,nT 0
-20

20

Bz ,nT o
-20

AE,nT 1oo0
o
o
.,a•.,..,•
I I I,I , I I I I I I /
DST,nT -200•ß '--'"
I ....
'"•'"•••l
I I •I --__
;I ______11
I ____
I..... I 4
-1
26 27 28 29 $0 31 I 2 $ 4

AUGUST,1978 SEPT, 1978

Figure 3. Exampleof an intense magneticstorm(August28), with peak Dst < -100 nT,
and of a HILDCAA event(August29, 1978to September
4, 1978),asindicatedby a horizontal
bar in the AE panel. On the top five panels, some of the interplanetary parameters measured
by the ISEE 3 satellite are shown. The intensestorm is associatedwith the arrival of a large
magnetic cloud, whereasthe HILDCAA event is associatedwith large-amplitudeinterplanetary
Alfv•nic fluctuations.

-50 nT < peakDst < -30 nT [Gonzalezet al., 1992].
Further researchis neededto investigatethe interplan-
etary causesof these lower-intensity storms.
Concerning solarminimumintervals, Akasofu [1981a]
has presentedsomeexamplesshowingthat Bs fieldsat
this epoch tend to be associatedwith the hellospheric
currentsheet(HCS) crossings at Earth. However,the
nature of the HSC interactionwith the recurrenthigh-
speed streams, while are common in this epoch of the
solar cycle, still needs to be investigatedin order to
understandthe resultingtype of Bs structures.
Finally, there has been recentprogressin trying to
understandthe solar and interplanetary originsof the
abovementionedBs structuresusingMHD simulation
techniques[ Derman et al., 1991;Dryer et al., 1992;
Wu et al., 1992]. Althoughthesestudieshaverepro-
ducedbasicBs featuresrelated for instanceto the drap-
ing mechanismand to the shock interaction with the
HCS, additional work still needsto be done before one
can try to compare the obtained simulational results
with the correspondingobservationsat i AU.
3.2. Solar Wind-MagnetosphereInteraction
During Magnetic Storms
Figure 4 illustratesthe overallfeaturesinvolvedin the
solar-interplanetary-magnetosphere couplingduringso-
lar maximum, indicating the main magnetosphericdis-
sipation mechanisms,storms and substorms,as well as
the basicrole of the "magnetosphericdynamo" in mag-
netosphericenergization.
The basicenergytransfer processin the Earth's mag-
netosphereis the conversionof directed mechanical en-
ergy from the flow of the solar wind into magnetic en-
ergy stored in the magnetotail, followed by its recon-
versioninto primarily thermal mechanicalenergyin the
plasma sheet, auroral particles,ring current, and Joule
heating of the ionosphere. Extraction of energy from
solar wind flow requires a net force between the so-
lar wind and the Earth, with force times solar wind
speed giving the energy input rate. This is a more
general way of looking to the magnetosphericdynamo
illustrated in Figure 4. The resulting magnetosheath
flow rate through the interaction region, large enough
to supply the mechanicalenergy, can be shown to be
a significantfraction of the solar wind flow through an
area equalto the projectedcrosssectionof the magneto-
sphere(see Vasyliunas[1987],for a derivationfroman
equivalentstressargument).For energygoinginto the
magnetosphere,the associatedforce is that betweenthe
Earth and the magnetotail(the i order-of-magnitude
larger Chapman-Ferraroforce is connectedwith the ir-
reversibleheatingat the bow shock).The largestcon-
sumer of energy in the magnetosphereis the buildup of
the storm time ring current,typically exceedingthe dis-
sipationin the aurora and the heatingof the ionosphere.
The alternativesuggestion
by Weisset al. [1992]that
substormprocessescan consumemore energy than the
ring current wasobtainedunder the assumptionof fairly
large valuesof the ring current decaytime. During large
storms,suchvaluescan be considerablyreduced[e.g.,
 GONZALEZ ET AL.' REVIEW PAPER 5777

SOLAR-INTERPLANETARY - MAGNETOSPHERE COUPLING

EARTH'S MAGNETOSPHERE

SUN

CME: CORONAL IMF: INTERPLANETARY E_.:SOLARWIND'S ELECTRICFIELD

MASS MAGNETIC J: MAGNETOPAUSECURRENTS
EJECTION FIELD E. J: MAGNETOSPHERIC DYNAMO
X: RECONNECTION REGIONS

-Bz:SOUTHWARD (•: AURORAL

D•SS•PAT•ON
COMPONENT OF IMF
(•); RING
CURRENT
DISSIPATION

Figur/• 4. Schematic
of the solar-interplanetary-magnetosphere
couplingduringsolarmaximum
years,duringwhicha coronalmassejectionis the mostimportantsolarsourcefor interplanetary
and magnetosphericdisturbances.

Gonzalezet al., 1989;PrigancovaandFeldstein,1992], Sincethe initial work by Russelland Elphic [1979]

thus requiringenergyinput rates higherthan thoseas- and by Haerendelet al. [1978], the so-calledflux
sociated with substorms. transferevents(FTEs) or flux erosioneventshavebeen
Since early studies, magnetic field reconnectionbe- arguedto representthe small-scalestructureof magne-
tween the southwardlydirected IMF and the geomag- topausereconnection.There is somecontroversy in the
netic field is the most widely accepted mechanismfor literature about the coexistenceof FTEs with large-
magnetospheric energizationand thereforefor magnetic scale reconnection,as recently reviewed by Gonzalez
storms[e.g.,Dungey, 1961;Petschek,1964;Rostoker [1991]with suggestions toward a reconciliatorymodel
and FSlthammar, 1967; Arnoldy, 1971; Tsurutani and of magnetopause reconnection.Although the coupling
Meng, 1972;Akasofu, 1981a;Gonzalezet al., 1989]. functions of Table 2 were derived from large-scalere-
Quantitative studiesof large-scalemagnetopauserecon- connectionmodels, one could argue that they also rep-
nection[e.g., Gonzalezand Mozer, 1974; Vasyliunas, resent the integrated contributionof the smaller-scale
1975;Sonnerup, 1984; Cowley, 1984]haveprovided FTE processes.
sufficientunderstandingabout the rate of energytrans- Usingmostof the couplingfunctionslistedin Table 2
fer from the solar wind to the magnetosphereduring as the energyinput functionfor equation(3), Gonzalez
magneticstorms. Gonzalez [1990]showedthat most et al. [1989]and Mendeset al. [1994]have"followed
of the widely usedcouplingfunctionsthat correlatewell the time evolutionof Dst* during the main phaseof in-
betweensolarwind parametersand magnetospheric dis- tense(peakDst < -100 nT) andmoderate(-100 nT
sipation parameterscan be derivedas particular cases _<peak Dst < -50 nT) storms.It wasshownthat sev-
of generalexpressions for the momentumand energy eral of thesecouplingfunctions,especiallye and VBs,
transfer at the magnetopausedue to large-scalerecon- representthe energyinput fairly well, althoughfunc-
nection. tionssuchaspl/2VB$ seemto become
moreimportant
Table 2 is a summary of the most commonly used during intervalsof time with large solar wind pressure
couplingfunctions.In this table V and p are the solar variations.Figure5 [Mendeset al., 1994]givesan ex-
wind speedand density,respectively;BT is the trans- ample of a moderate storm's Dst*, together with the
verse(to the Sun-Earthline)component oftheIMF vec- functionQ of equation(3) and the bestrepresentative
2 2 1/2
top,B•. = (B• + By) coordi- coupling
in solarmagnetospheric functions
(e, Ey- VB• andF4-- p-1/•VB2
nates;B is the IMF magnitudeand 0 is the clockangle sin4(0/2)). A moredetailedcomparison betweenthe
betweenB•- and the geomagnetic field vectorprojected behavior of Q and e is also shown.
at the magnetopause;Lo is a constantscale-lengthfac- Using someof the most commonlyknown coupling
tor (equalto 7 Rz). As mentionedabove,it hasbeen functions, such as VB• and e, linear filters were con-
shownextensivelythat amongthe parametersinvolved structedfor substormprediction[Iyemori et al., 1979;
in these couplingfunctionsthe dominant ones are Bs Bargatzeet al., 1985;Clauer, 1986]. From the studied
andV ( e.g.,seeBakeret at., [1983]for a review). responsetimes it was suggestedthat substormshave
5778 GONZALEZ ET AL.' REVIEW PAPER

o
 GONZALEZ ET AL.' REVIEW PAPER 5779

250• • ' '

120
(CGS) I I e/11 ß

AT = 250 min ß

0 ,

(10•eerg/s)
0 80-

(mV/m) ', . (nT/h)

-

_O 120
40-
(nT/h)
3(• -

Dst• 0 -

(nT)-120' o I I I

12 18 24 6 o 20
26-27 Jul. 1979 erg/s )

Figure 5. Exampleof coupling

functions(e, Ey, andF4), energyinputfunctionQ, andDst*
curvefor the storm of July 26 and 27, 1979. The associatedQ/e variability is alsoshown. See
text for details.[AfterMendeset al., 1994].

two energyinput components,

one "directlydriven"by from Gonzalezand Tsurutani [1992]. Note that this
the solar wind and the other indirectly, namely "un- distribution showsa very large seasonalmodulation as
loaded" from the tail reservoir. For a comprehensive comparedto the lessmarkedmodulationsusuallyfound
discussionon the relative roles of directly "driven" and for lessintensestorms [e.g., Cl•a de Gonzalezet al.,
"unloaded"componentsof substormenergyinput, the 1993]. There is no consensus
as yet about the origin
reader is referred to the review paper by Rostoker et al., of the seasonaldistribution of storms, especially with
[1987].The linearpredictionfilter techniquehasnot as respectto the distribution of intensestorms.
yet been applied to the study of storms with enough Recently,Crookeret al. [1992]arguedthat the strong
detail to see if storms also have driven and unloading Bs fields that are responsiblefor the seasonaldistribu-
components and in whichproportionasa functionof the
level of storm intensity. Some limited results of linear SEASONAL VARIATION OF MAGNETIC STORMS: 1975-1986
filtersfor stormpredictability,
asgoverned by equation I I I I I I I I i I I

(3), havebeenpresented by Fay et al. [1986].

On the other hand, observationally, it was shown
[Gonzalezet at., 1989]that mostof the intensestorms
seem to be directly driven, whereas the lesserthe in-
tensity of storms the smaller the correlationcoefficients
were found to be betweenthe directly driven-coupling • 4.0
functionsand the responseof the ring current, as ob-
tained from equation(3). Thereforeit was suggested
[Gonzalez
et al.• 1989;Mendeset al.• 1994]that un- 0 0.8

loading componentsseemto becomemore important

for moderate(and weaker)storms.
Recently,there has been a considerableeffort to find "'
mechanisms
inthemagnetosphere
thatcould
model
the z_o.e
drivenand unloadingcomponents
[e.g Baker et al. o
1991;Ktimaset at., 1992;Goertz½!at., 1993]in the •: 0.4
interest of finding linear and nonlinear filters to use
in substormprediction[e.g. Vassiliadiset al. 1993]
Eventually,
it wouldbeof greatinterestto extendsuch N
• 0.2
effortsto the study of storms.
o

3.3. Seasonal and Solar-Cycle Distribution of

Storms o i i i i I i I i i i I
,i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 44 42

It is known that geomagneticactivity as a whole has MONTH

a seasonal variability with maxima at the equinoxes Figure 6. Seasonal distribution of intense storms
[e.g.,Russelland McPherron, 1973]. Figure6 shows (peak Dst < -100 nT) for the interval1975-1986.
a seasonal distribution for intense storms with peak The normalizednumber of thesestormsper month is
Dst _<-100 nT, duringthe 1975-1986interval (taken given.
5780 GONZALEZ ET AL.- REVIEW PAPER

tion of intense storms can originate in the postshock Cycle 21

200
flow from a major increase in the Russell-McPherron
Storms with Dst<-100 nT
polarity effect through a systematic pattern of com- (a)
pression and draping within the ecliptic plane. How- 20-
ever, this effect doesnot seem to substantially alter the
Bs fields which are already large in solar ecliptic co-
ordinates and which even seem to have a type of "ax- E - •
= Z
ial."[Cortie, 1915]seasonaldistributionalreadyincor- Z - ,,e-
•,• 0
poratedinto them [Gonzalezet al., 1993]. o 10- m
It is well known that geomagneticactivity as a whole
tends to becomeenhancedduring the descendingphase
of the solarcycle,near solarminimum [e.g., Sugiura, _

1980; Legrandand Simon, 1991]. However,Gonzalez

et al. [1990]showedthat intensestorms(peak Dst _< 0 .... 0
-100 nT) tend to showtwo peakswithin the solarcy- 1- 200
cle, one somewhat ahead or at solar maximum and the • _ Bz events
<- 10nTandT > 5h (b)
other 2 to 3 years after solar maximum. Figure 7a is an
•: 0.8-
example of a dual peak distribution for intense storms •, -

( peak Dst < -100 nT) for solarcycle21. It wasalso

found [Gonzalezet al., 1990]that the solarcycledistri- • 0.6- •
bution of Bz fields with intensities < -10 nT and du- • z
ration > 3 hours have a similar dual-peak distribution • - -lOO •
during cycle 21 as shown in Figure 7b. This associa- c 0.4- m
tion of intense storms to such a class of Bs fields was • -

• -
initially suggestedby Gonzalezand Tsurutani [1987]
• 0.2-
from a study of intense storms for the August 1978 to
December 1979 ISEE 3 interval. • -

4. Relationships of Storms and
Substorms
4.1. A Question of Definition
Intense substorms are observedto occur during the
main phase of magnetic storms. Many researchersbe-
lieve, or tacitly assume,that magneticstormsdevelopas
a result of the frequent occurrenceof substorms. In fact,
in an early paper dealing with this question Chapman
[1962,p. 9] stated that:
A magnetic storm consists of sporadic and inter-
mittent polar disturbances,the lifetimes being usu-
ally one or more hours. These I call polar sub-
storms. Although polar substormsoccur most of-
ten during magnetic storms, they also appear dur-
ing rather quiet periods when no significantstorm
is in progress.
In a retrospective view of his work with S. Chapman,
Akasofu(privatecommunication,
1991)commented'
One of the first findings from studying intense
storms during the International GeophysicalYear
was that the aurora underwenta systematicchange
several times during the storm from a quiet condi-
tion to a very disturbed one and back to a quiet
condition. It was a great surpriseto us that the au-
rora could be very quiet even during the maximum
epoch of the main phase.
• 0 • • • • - 0
Year
Figure 7. (a) Dual-peakdisLribu[ion
of in[ensesLorms
< -z00 nT) 2Z. (b) Corre-
sponding dual-peak disLribu[ion of B• fields wi[h am-
pliLudes< -10 nT and dura[ionT > 3h. (The yearly
re]alivenumberof evenIsis given.) The unha[chedbars
are Lhe correc[ed values afLer [hose in[erva]s were nor-
realized Lo Lhe available sa[e]]i[e da[a coverage. Up-
da[edfrom Gonzalezet al. [1990].
Thus, in principle, a magnetospheric substorm
[Akasofu, 1968]canoccurindependently of a magnetic
storm. A moderndefinitionof a substorm[Rostokeret
al., 1980,p. 1663]is
A magnetosphericsubstorm is a transient process
initiated on the night side of the Earth in which a
significantamount of energy derived from the solar
wind-magnetøsphere interaction is depositedin the
auroral ionosphereand magnetosphere.
There are certainly good physical reasonsto believe
that a magnetic storm consistsof intense substorms.
During episodesof substormactivity, energycan be de-
posited into the inner magnetosphere,leading to the
formationof the so-calledpartial ring current(which
is connectedto the auroral electrojets through field-
alignedcurrents).The nightsideportion of the partial
ring current is probably contiguouswith the cross-tail
currentin the magnetotail[Sugiura, 1972]. Sincethe
 GONZALEZ ET AL.: REVIEW PAPER 5781

characteristicresponsetime of this partial ring current netotail which concurrentlydeliversenergyto the ring
is approximately2-3 hours[Clauer et al., 1983],if in- currentand the polar ionosphere(the latter being re-
tense substorms occur successivelywhen the effects of sponsiblefor substormsignatures).When there is no
previous substorms still remain in terms of the par- energy input to the ring current, the ring current in-
tial ring current, the local time extent of that par- tensity decaysaccordingto equation(4). This seems
tial ring current could become larger and evolve into to be consistentwith observations[e.g., Davis and
a storm time symmetric ring current. In other words, Parthasarthy, 1967; Feldsteinet al., 1984]. However,
an individual substorm may causean azimuthally local- many researchershave noticed that this simple assump-
ized "mini" ring current. If substormsoccur frequently tion doesnot work very well on many occasions[cf.
enough,the injected ring current particlesmay accumu- Davis, 1969; Kamide and Fukushima, 1971]. For the
late in the trapping region,forming the symmetricring auroralelectrojetshavingthe samestrength(as quan-
current associatedwith the main phaseof a geomagnetic tified by AE), the ring current growsmore efficiently
storm. It is also quite conceivablethat plasma injection during the main phase of storms than during nonmain
associatedwith intensesubstormsoccurringduring the phase periods, indicating that the energy injection rate
main phaseof a magnetic storm takes place over a wide into the ring current is not simply proportional to the
longitude range, so that it does not take long for the level of substorm activity. It may, however, be possible
successiveinjectionsto form a symmetric ring current. to write the storm-substorm relationship as
While this is a plausible scenario,one must ask if it re-
ally is the casethat the observed Dst variations can be storm
-- • c•i(substorm)i,
reproducedquantitatively purely from a knowledgeof
the substorm activity. where O•i is the efficiency of the ith event, which is
To addressthis matter, there is a seriesof questions largestduringthe early main phaseof a magneticstorm.
That is
we must consider. Is the successiveoccurrenceof many
intensesubstormsa necessaryconditionfor a magnetic
storm? If so, how many is many? How intense is in- Q(t) = c•(t)AL(t),
tense? How successive is successive? If the answer of
wherethe parameterc•(0 < c• < 1) expresses
the effi-
the first of these questionsis no, why are substorms ciency of the ring current growth relative to the corre-
therefore incidental, and what is their role in the solar- spondingsubstorm intensity.
terrestrial interaction?
The result is shownin Figure 8 [cf. Kamide and
4.2. Storm Conditions Fukushima, 1971], in which the efficiencyis assumed
to be an exponential function of time. For both weak
The ring current evolution is governedby equation and great storms, the observedDst variations are quite
(3). To test whether Dst can be reproducedthrough nicely reproducedby a superpositionof AL times the ef-
knowledgeof ongoingsubstormactivity (or, moreprac- ficiency. This indicatesthat, although the development
tically, by a knowledgeof the AE indices),we assume of the ring current and that of the auroral electrojet
that Q is simply proportional to substorm activity. In are closelyrelated, the partition of energy injected into
other words, we simply assume that the storm main the ring current and into the polar ionosphereis not
phase is describedsimply by a linear superpositionof always in constant proportion. One might reasonably
substormdisturbances.The logic(or physics)behind ask what determinesthis partition rate which changes
this assumption doesnot demand that the auroral elec- with time. In the mathematical treatment, a is the ef-
trojets in the ionospheredirectly generatethe magne- ficiency of energy input into the ring current. Thus we
tosphericring current. Rather, it suggeststhere is an have the fundamental question: what is the physicsof
energyreservoirin the solarwind/magnetosphere/mag- the processescontrollingthis efficiency?

50

Predicted

-100

observed
APRIL 17-20, 1965 UT
-200
12 i8 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6

Figure 8. Comparisonof the Dst index and the energy of the ring current computedon the
basis of the assumption that the injection rate into the ring current is related to AE so that
it is maximumat the beginningof the main phaseand decaysexponentiallythereafter. [After
Kamide and Fukushima, 1971].
5782 GONZALEZ ET AL.: REVIEW PAPER

As reviewedin section3, it is now well recognizedthat from the imposition of the enhanced solar wind dawn-
the solar wind parameters, and, in particular, the mag- to-dusk electric field acrossthe magnetosphere. This
nitude and directionof the interplanetary magneticfield view is consistentwith the predictions of the ring cur-
interac- rent couplingmodel of Siscoe [1982]which suggests
(IMF), controlthe level of the solar-terrestrial
tion, sincethe initial work by Rostoker and Fa'lthammar that Dst is directly derived from the solar wind param-
[1967]and by Kokubun [1972].As summarizedin Ta- eters, whereas AE is not.
ble 1, the IMF Bs field has to exceed a threshold level Therefore we should refocus on the question of why
both in amplitude and in duration in order for a storm somelarge substormsare associatedwith significantin-
main phase of a given intensity to develop. creasesin Dst, while other equallylarge substormsseem
From the discussionin section 3, it seems reason- to have little effect on it. Part of the answer may lie
able to suggestthat the efficiencyc•(t) is a function in the fact that the ring current strength may reflect
of the southward component of the IMF or dawn-to- the cumulative effect of a lengthy period of exception-
dusk component of the electric field in the interplane- ally enhancedenergyinput from the solar wind into the
tary medium. This manifestsitself in the regulation of magnetosphere,as suggestedinitially by Rostoker and
the rate of injection of ring current particles into the Fa'lthammar [1967]. That is, if the combinedeffect
inner magnetosphereby the IMF. of the strength of the interplanetary electric field and
For the formulationof any storm/substormrelation- the length of time that strength is maintained is inad-
ship model, the following three points must be taken equate, one might observesignificant expansivephase
into account: activity yet little ring current enhancement. Alterna-
1. There is no apparent difference between storm tively, one might arguethat the level of substormactiv-
time substorms and substorms occurring at times of ity (as quantifiedby the AL or AE indices)maybearno
no significantDst enhancement,except that the most relationship to the enhancementof Dst, since substorm
intense substorms are usually found within the main expansivephaseactivity reflectsdispensationof energy
phase of storms. in a way that makes it unavailable for storage in the
2. No magnetic storms have been observedin the ring current. Yet a third explanation may centeron the
absence of substorms. manner in which AE and AL are measured(namely,
3. When geomagneticactivity is exceptionallyhigh the way in which the level of substorm activity is quan-
(i.e., Kp = 9), it is alwaysduringa magneticstorm. tified). The stations,whosemeasurements are usedto
Another complication in understanding magnetic evaluateAE and AL, are positionedcloseto the average
storm/substormprocessesin the magnetospherelies auroral oval location. For great storms, the auroral oval
in the existence of quasi-steady magnetosphericcon- is displaced far equatorward of its normal position, in
ditions. Evidence for such behavior is found in the which casethe AE observatoriesdo not samplethe elec-
existenceof convectionbays [Pytte et al., 1978] and trojet perturbationsat their peakin latitude [F½ldstein,
steadymagnetospheric convectionepisodes[Sergeevand 1992]. Thus the strengthof substormactivity might be
Lennartson, 1988]. Such behavior of the magneto- seriouslyunderestimatedfor times when the particle in-
sphere has been shown to be in evidenceduring long jections[cf. Mcllwain, 1974]occurrelativelycloseto
intervalsof relatively constantlarge southwardIMF. In the Earth. It is very likely that significantring current
addition, the HILDCAA events studied by Tsurutani enhancementsoccur when the particle injections occur
and Gonzalez [1987]suggestsa certainuniqueresponse unusually closeto the Earth, as we shall discussin the
next section.
of the magnetosphereto quasi-periodicdisturbancesin
the IMP.
4.3. Origin of Dst Through Injection
The presenceof substormsis certainly not a sufficient of Energetic Particles
condition for the development of a magnetic storm.
Sometimes, there may even appear to be an anticor- It is fairly clear that the ring current enhancementis
relation between substorm intensity during the storm at least partly associatedwith the injection of energetic
and the intensity of the storm itself as quantified by particles associatedwith substorm expansivephase ac-
Dst [Akasofu, 198lb]. Nonetheless, it is probablytrue tivity. Therefore we return to the question of why it is
that the IMF condition for substorms is included in the that certain expansivephase events are associatedwith
IMP condition for storms. According to Kamide et al. significant ring current injection, while others seem to
[1977],substormsoccur with 100% probabilitywhen- have little effect and try to establish a physical rea-
ever the 1-hour-averagedIMF Bz has a value < -3 nT, son for this apparent fact. One way of approachingthe
as also indicated in Table 1. According to this table, a question is to note that a symmetric ring current will
necessary conditionfor intense( peakDst < -100 nT) developonly if the injected energeticparticlescan make
magnetic storms is that the southward IMF must be complete drift paths around the Earth. Two possibili-
large (< -10 nT and sustained(> 3 hrs). The main ties prevent this happening. On one hand, if the injec-
phase of a magnetic storm starts when solar wind par- tion takesplacetoo far behindthe Earth (largeL), the
cel carrying a large southward IMF impacts the mag- drift paths will intersect the magnetopausealong the
netopause. At least, in a working model, it is conve- magnetotail flank space and the injected particles will
nient to assume that substorms occur as a by-product be unable to contribute to a symmetric ring current.
of enhanced magnetosphericconvection which results On the other hand, if the injection reachescloseto the
 GONZALEZ ET AL' REVIEW PAPER 5783

Earth (low L), it is likely that the convectionelectric asymmetricring current. Whether or not those parti-
field will be very high in order to set up sucha situation cles contribute to the symmetric ring current depends
and under those circumstances,at least for a long time on the considerations discussed above.
the injected particles may conveerto the daysidemag-
netopauseand will again be lost before they are able 5. Discussion
to make a complete circuit of the Earth. Thus it seems
likely that a symmetricring current will be set up when 5.1. Origin of Dst Through Additional
the injection is closeenoughto the Earth and the con- Mechanisms
vection electric field terminates in a way that the ma-
jority of particlesremain trapped in the magnetosphere It was shownby Lyons and Williams [1980]that
and the injected particles will make complete circuits flux increasesof trapped ions and electronsobservedat
of the Earth's magnetosphere.This, in turn, can occur L values_<4 during intensegeomagneticstormscan be
when there is a marked reduction in the convection elec- quantitatively explained by a 1 to 3 Rz inward radial
tric field at the time of onset of the substormexpansive displacementof the preexistingtrapped particle distri-
phase activity responsiblefor the injection. The con- butions. This proposedsourcefor the storm time ring
dition necessaryfor this combination of circumstances current at L _< 4 requires only the acceleration of the
to prevail is a reduction of energyflow into the magne- previouslyexisting trapped particle population via in-
tosphere at the time of substorm expansive phase on- ward displacement under conservation of the first two
set, and the most probable way in which this can be adiabatic invariants. It was not possibleto test whether
achievedis by a changein the IMF Bs componentto such an inward radial displacement can account for
make it northward or, at least, lesssouthward. It would storm time flux increasesat any radial distancebeyond
be worthwhile to carry out a study of the changein the L - 4. However, the existenceof particle lossesimplies
interplanetary conditionsat the time of significanten- that new particles are injected into the trapped region
hancementsin Dst to see if the suggestionregarding beyond L - 4. It was also suggestedby Lyons and
the reasonfor the lack of a simple correlation between Williams that a significant differencebetween intense
Dst and AE/AL is borneout. geomagneticstormsand typical substormactivity may
In a recentsimulationstudy, Takahashiet al., [1990] be inward convectionoccurringover a much larger lon-
have tested the formation of a closedring current from gitudinal range during storms than during typical sub-
a partial ring current using a monochromaticparticle storms. Similarly, the convectionelectric fields involved
trajectory tracing method and a time-varying convec- in the radial displacementsduring intensestormswould
tion electricfield. It wasalsoshown[Takahashiet al., be at least 2 to 3 times greater than thosetypically ob-
1991]that the asymmetriccomponentof the ring cur- servedduring substorms.
rent can dominate the symmetric one during the main Because
the abovemechanism
applie
s mostlyto
phasewith strong ionosphericand field-alignedcurrent trapped particlesin the energyrange <_40 keV, sinceat
components. higherenergiesthe ring currentparticleshavedrift peri-
It is worth noting that the last five years have seen ods that are typically shorter than the time of the main
important advancesin our knowledgeof the changesat phasedevelopment, Lyonsand Schulz [1989]havesug-
geostationaryorbit during substormactivity. In partic- gestedthat at thosehigherenergies,the radial transport
ular, Kauffman [1987]has beenable to showthat the is performed instead by stochasticelectric fields. For
intensity of the cross-tailcurrent near geostationaryor- sucha diffusiveradialtransport,Chenet al. [1992]have
bit has to be at least an order of magnitudelarger than performed a guiding-center simulation using a quasi-
what had been previouslyimagined in order to account linear theory of radial diffusion initially proposed by
for the ability of the magnetic field in that region of Fdlthammar [1965].
spaceto becomevery taillike. It is then quite apparent Figure 9 is a summary of the above reviewedmecha-
that the dipolarizationof the field linesnear geostation- nisms(subsections 4.3 and 5.1) for the stormtime ring
ary orbit at the time of somesubstormexpansivephases currentformation. Note in this figure that (1) and
mustinvolveverylargeinductiveelectricfields(namely (2) neednot necessarily
involvethe occurrence
of sub-
a large rate of changeof field associatedwith the sud- storms.
den reductionof the cross-tailcurrent near geostation-
5.2. Ring Current Loss Processes
ary orbit). Mauk andMeng [1987]haveaccounted
for
the "injection"of energeticparticlesby callingon an in- Sinceearlyworks[e.g.,AkasofuandChapman, 1972]
ductiveelectricfield associatedwith the suddenchanges it was suggestedthat the ring current consistsat least
in the cross-tail current, and studies by Wang et al. of two distinct belts: one developinginto a large com-
[1990]and by Lui et al. [1991a]havesuggested physi- ponent(but decayingquickly)and the other havinga
cal mechanisms which account for the sudden reduction weakernature(decayingslowly).A moderninterpreta-
of the cross-tailcurrent. Therefore there is every reason tion implies the existenceof oxygenions at closedis-
to believethat the dipolarizationof the magneticfield tances(2-4 Rz) for the formertype, whilethe latter is
in the near-Earth magnetotail at the time of substorm usually identified with a belt consistingmostly of pro-
expansivephase onset is an important causefor the en- tons at a greaterdistance[e.g., Williams, 1985;Lui e!
ergization of particles which would becomepart of the al., 1987;Hamilton e! al., 1988].
5784 GONZALEZ ET AL.: REVIEW PAPER

MECHANISMS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO STORM- TIME

netic ion cyclotronwaves[Cornwall, 1977; Solomon
RING CURRENT FORMATION
and Picon, 1981]. We thus anticipatethat the accom-
panying wave excitation could becomeimportant dur-
ing the storm main phase,when the ring current is clos-
est to the Earth. In addition, the betatron acceleration
of ions during the storm main phase will also prefer-
entially heat ions in the direction perpendicular to Bo.
This processwill further contributeto producinga dis-
tribution which is unstable to wave excitation.
One Shouldthereforeattempt to make a quantita-
tive assessmentof the excitation of electromagnetic
/ RC• ion-cyclotronand other plasma wavesduring the main
phaseof the storm. The lifetime for ion lossesdue to
•. %• '(•), • ES resonantinteractionswith suchwaves[e.g.,Cornwallet
al., 1970] can be substantiallyshorterthan the life-
time due to charge exchangeor Coulomb scattering.

-•IB EDD Thus this mechanism may account for the exception-
ally short lifetimes that have been obtained during the
mainphaseby previousempiricalstudies[e.g.,Akasofu,
1981a;Gonzalez,1989].
During the storm recovery, the convectionelectric
fieldsubsides
, and the plasmapause
(whichis the outer
boundaryof plasmaof ionospheric origin) will conse-
O DRIVEN
OUTER
CONVECTION EDD.'DAWN-DUSKELECTRICFIELD quently begin to move outward away from the Earth
(•) DRIVEN
INNER
CONVECTION ES ,STOCHASTIC
ELECTRICFIELDS [Chappell,1972],refillingthe plasmasphere.Coulomb
scattering of ring current ions can becomean important
(•) SUBSTORM
INJECTIONS IB ,iNJECTION BOUNDARIES
lossprocessfor ionslocatedinsidethe high-densityplas-
(•) STOCHASTIC
RADIAL
DRIFT RC •PRE STORM RING CURRENT masphere
(Ne _>103)duringthis phaseof the storm
[Foket al., 1991].Coulombscatteringby thermalelec-
RC! 'STORM-TIME RING CURRENT
trons could causea gradual energy degradation of the
trapped ions alongthe inner edgeof the ring current. It
Figure 9. The variousmechanismsthat contribute to may also tend to reduce the anisotropyin the ion pitch
the storm-time ring current formation. angle distribution and thus terminate or decreasewave
growth. In the regionoutsideof the expandingplasma-
Thus the ion compositionand locationof the ring cur- pause,chargeexchangewill remain an important, if not
rent belts must be known in order to have a better quan- dominant[SmithIet al., 1976],lossprocess.The strong
titative understandingof the lossprocessesand there- dependenceof the chargeexchangelifetimes on ion en-
fore of the •- parameterin equation(3). Somesimula- ergyand composition[TinsIcy, 1976;LyonsandEvans,
tion effortshave been alreadyundertaken[Wodnicka, 1976; Spjeldvik,1981; Fok et al., 1991]shoulddeter-
1991]in order to follow the storm development as a mine the energyspectrum,pitch angledistribution and
function of injection energy,initial pitch angle distribu- compositionof ionsin the outer ring current during the
tion, site of ion injection and ion species. As discussed storm recovery. Whether wave excitation and associ-
in section 2, •- is a complex function of the several loss ated loss is possibleunder these conditionsremains to
processes.To calculate an overall value of •-, all of the be established.
particles composingthe ring current for all loss pro- From the roughempiricalmodelingdonefor the storm
cesses should be considered. main phase, it has been found that r tends to decrease
There are three basic processesthat contribute to with increasinginjection rate. Prigancovaand Feldstein
the removal of geomagnetically trapped ions within [1992]have suggestedthat, for intenseinjections,the
the Earth's radiation belts, namely charge exchange, value of r may decreaseto ~ 1 hour. Gonzalez et al.
Coulomb scattering, and resonant interactions with [1989]haveempiricallydeterminedevenlowervaluesof
plasma waves. Each processdependssensitivelyon the r at the peak of the main phase of very intense storms.
ion energy, composition, pitch angle distribution and Currently, no physical model has been proposed that
general location in the radiation belts. Becauseof this accountsfor decaytimes of ~ 1 hour or less[e.g., Fok
sensitivity, one must be able to determine both the ab- et al., 1991].
solute value and relative importance of each process 5.3. Relationship of Dst to Other Geomagnetic
during all phasesof the storm. Indices
These loss processesare not totally independent of
one another. As one example,the pitch angleanisotropy There have been only few attempts to relate statisti-
producedby chargeexchangeresultsin a particle distri- callythe Dst indexto othergeomagneticindices[Camp-
bution which is unstableto the excitation of electromag- bell,1979; Saba et al., 1994]. Throughthesestudies,
 GONZALEZ ET AL' REVIEW PAPER 5785

usefulinformation has emergedfor a better understand-
ing of the storm/substormrelationship. In addition,
throughrelationsdeterminedbetweenDst and ap (or
Kp), one could extrapolatevaluesfor Dst during in-
tervalsof time when they were not still available(be-
fore 1957). Examplesof theserelationships havebeen
presentedby Sabaet al. [1994]from pair correlation
studiesbetween Dst, ap, and AE, separately for inter-
vals of time around solar maximum as well as around
solar minimum. These authors have also used a mul-
ticorrelation approach for the correlation study of ap
as a function of Dst and AE and found larger corre-
lation values than those obtained for the simple pair
correlations Dst versus AE and Dst versus ap. This
followsfrom the idea that middle latitude magnetome-
ter records have contributions both from substorms cur-
rents and the ring current. The relative proportion of
suchcontributionsas a function of storm phaseand level
of storm amplitude is presentlyunder investigation.
Amongtheveryfewstudies
published
onthestorm/
substorm relationship, the early work by Davis and
Parthasarathy [1967] and that by Akasofu [1981b] manner. However, for more intense storms he found
deservespecial attention. It was shown by Davis and
Parthasarathy that peak Dst values tend to be corre-
lated with the sum of hourly valuesof AE duringthe 10
hoursprecedingthe time of peak Dst. The analysiswas
done for a set of moderate and intense storms of 1958
and for other integration intervals, from a few to about
15 h9urs, obtaining a better correlation coefficientfor intensity.A linearbehaviorfor moderatestorms(storm
10 hours. of October13, 1974) and a saturationfor AE valuesat
Recently,Sabaet al. [1994]haveperformeda similar about 1000 nT (decoupling)
analysisfor a set of 22 intense storms of 1974, 1978, and of April 4, 1974), as suggested
1979 and found the same result obtained by Davis and
Parthasarathy, namely that the peak Dst values corre-
late the best (correlationcoefficientof 0.87) with the
time integral of AE during the preceding10 hours from
peak Dst. The AE time integration was alsoperformed
for the main phase duration interval of each storm, but
the correlationcoefficient
wasconsiderably
lower(0.65).
The explanation behind the 10-hour integral of AE
when compared with the peak -Dst value of the storm
is not clear. Somepreliminarysuggestionsinvolve(1)
theexistence of about10-hour"packages"
of AE during
intense storms, which are formed by three to four con-
secutiveintensesubstorms;
(2) the typical durationof
a Bs field within interplanetary structuresof the mag-
netic cloudtype; and (3) critical time scalesfor the
combinedstorm/substormdissipationmechanisms.
On the otherhand, Akasofu [1981b]studiedthe Dst-
AE relationship during a few intensestorms in order to
test the linearity of the growth of AE during the storm
main phase. He suggestedthat at the moderate storm
level,AE andIDstlgrowtogether
in a practically
linear
that AE tends to saturate at a level of about 1000 nT
suggestinga sort of storm/substormdecoupling.
Sabaet al. [1994]havealsoupdatedthis studyusing
15 intense(-250 nT _< peak Dst < -100 nT) and
very intense(peak Dst < -250 nT) storms.Figure 10
illustrates the results obtained for several levels of storm
for intensestorms(storm
by Akasofu,canbe seen

AE-Dst RELATIONSHIP FOR SEVERAL LEVELS OF STORM INTENSITY

1500 500
OCT. I $, 1974 APRIL 4,1974
250- 250-
E D B
1000- 000- -- -

750- 750-

500- 500-

250- 250-

0 I I i i I 0
-250 - 2OO 15O -IOO -50 o 5O -250 -2•)0 -1 •o -lOOi i
-5o i
o 5O
Dst (nT) Dst (nT)

2500

zøøøl
17501
/,p,. ,sz 2000-
MARCH 8, 1970

• 15001 BCA• 500-

,., ,ooo
i I000-
C

500• 500-

O i
-5o -6o -zo -z6o -,6o -56 o -oo -z5o -z6o -,6o o
Dst (nT) Dst (nT)

Figure 10. AE-Dst relationshipfor severallevelsof storm intensity. Updated from $aba et al.
[1993].
 5786 GONZALEZET AL.: REVIEW PAPER

in thisfigure.However,
at higherstormintensities,
such occurin the absenceof an intensestorm.In thisway
a behaviorseemsto changeconsiderably, showingin bothconcepts,initiallysuggested
by Chapman[1962]
somecasessaturationat higherAE values(stormof andby Akasofu [1968]becomeincorporated in a more
July13,1982)or evena rapiddecrease in AE (storm generalconcept.This is alsoconfirmed
by the classof
of March8, 1970). HILDCAA substorms, whichhasa frequentandintense
Feldstein[1992]hassuggested that theapparentsat- characterbut doesnot involve an intensestorm due to
uration or evendecreasein AE for intensestormscan be the lackof a sufficiently
largeandsustainedconvection
dueto the fact that duringsuchcasesthe auroraloval electric field.
becomesconsiderablylowerin latitude and the AE sta- Sincethe amplitude and duration of the convection
tions do not correctlymonitor the substormevolution. electricfield dependon the amplitudeand durationof
However, the intensestormof March23 and24, 1969, theIMF Bz component, the aboveconcepts canbe bet-
studiedby Feldstein, using(latitudinal)corrected AE ter understood with the help of Figure11. Here we
values,still showsa clearsaturationduringthe final illustrate theBz conditions forsubstorms, HILDCAAs,
hoursof the storm'smain phase. andintense storms.A modestBz valueof, say,-3 nT
(seeTable1) with durationof ~ 1 hourisknownto be
6. Summary Concepts sufficientto lead to a substorm. Becausethe associated
convection electricfieldisrelatively
small,a ringcurrent
In reviewing the concept
of a geomagnetic storm,we intensification canoccur,in principle,but with a small
findthatthetermstormisbased ona phenomenology of contribution to Dst dueto theexpected smallinjection
middle-andlow-latitude-geomagnetic variations,iden- and distantlocationof the ring current. This situa-
of the ring currentas the tion occursrepeatedlyduringHILDCAA eventssince
tified by the intensification
sourceof the low-frequency component of stormmag- theBz field,whichbelongs to a trainof interplanetary
netic variationand quantifiedby the Dst index. Alfv•nwaves
[Tsurutani
andGonzalez,
1987],alsohas
Both the storm and substormphenomenaowetheir a modestBz amplitude,typically > -5 nT. On the
originto physicalprocessesin whichenergyfrom the otherhand, duringintensestormsthe Bz field has a
solarwindis redistributed
in the magnetosphere-iono- largeamplitude anda sustainedduration
(asthosein-
spheresystem. The propertiesof the substormsare in dicated in Table1), whicharemostcommonlyobserved
somewayrelatedto the propertiesof the ring current during intenseCME events.
developmentas pointedout in sections4.2 and 5.1 and In summary,we can define a storm as an interval of
illustratedin Figure9 of thispaper,but the physics of timewhena sufficiently
intense andlong-lasting
inter-
this relationshipis not at this time fully understood. planetary
convection
electric
fieldleads,through
a sub-
Clearly, substormexpansivephaseeffectscan lead to stantialenergization in the magnetosphere-ionosphere
changesin the magnetospheric electricfield that have
profoundeffectson the ring currentformationwhich STORM - SUBSTORM RELATIONSHIP
appearto be nonlinearin nature. A possiblefeedback
mechanism
ofringcurrentintensification
in modulating
substormdynamicsshouldalsobe explored. SUBSTORM
AE A
Presentassignment of a lowerthresholdfor Dst, be- Dst • Bz V
low which the term storm is not applicablehas no
physicalbasis. However,assigninga lowerthreshold
IMINOR
RING
CURRENT
INTENSIFICATION EVENT

servesan operationalneedin termsof identifyinga data

set taken duringintervalsof strongpenetrationof so-
lar windenergyintothemagnetosphere-ionosphere
sys-
tems,whichare vulnerableto effectsproducedby the A• INTERPLAN
solar-terrestrial interaction. Thus a storm can then be HILDCAA
AE••
Dst Be,A•]•V•
• ALFVEN
WAVES
understoodto be a special caseof suchinteractionin
whichthe ring currentgrowsuntil somekey threshold MINOR
RING
CURRENT
INTENSIFICATION EVENTS
of the quantifyingindex Dst is exceeded.
Why some intervals of enhanced solar-terrestrial in-
teractionfeaturering currentgrowthleadingto a Dst
exceeding the specifiedthreshold(in the caseof this
paper,the thresholdbeing-30 nT) seemsto depend INTENSE
AE Bz CME
on the behavior of the convection electric field in the
AT
magnetosphere.
Fairly intensesubstorminjectionsare
known to occur at modest levels of the convectionelec- • AJOR
RING
CURRENT
INTENSIFICATION

tric field. However,to bringthe ring currentcloserto

Earth,convection electric
fieldsoflargerintensity Figure 11. Schematic
(and ship ofthestorm/substorm relation-
in terms of the Dst and AE indicesfor the three
duration)are necessary. Thereforeonecansaythat basicclasses ofactivityknownassubstorm, HILDCAA,
an intensestorm is accompanied by intenseand fre- andstorm.Theassociated Bz fieldbehaviorandorigin
quent substorms but that intense substorms can also are also shown.
 GONZALEZ ET AL.: REVIEW PAPER 5787

system, to an intensifiedring current strong enoughto pose of studying magnetic storms, is Dst. As reviewed
exceedsomekey thresholdof the quantifying storm time in section2.1, this index was introduced[cf. $ugiura,
Dst index. 1964]to providea measureof the strengthof the sym-
Because such an interplanetary electric field condi- metric ring current and has remained the most com-
tion is also expected to lead to the frequent occurrence monly used measure of the strength to this day. The
of intense substorms, the fact that the main phase of index is derived using the N-S component of the per-
storms has been observed to be always accompanied turbation magnetic field at four widely distributed low-
by substorms is consequentlyexplained. However, to latitude stations. The measuredmagnetic field pertur-
what extent such occurrence of frequent substorms is bations are corrected for the effects of Sq and for dif-
necessaryfor ring current intensificationis still an open ferences in latitude between the stations, and the four
question. final values of the magnetic perturbation are averaged
When we refer to an intensification of the "ring cur- to produce the value Dst. Dst is generally available as
rent,"we still do not know, physically, which currents a table of hourly values.
are being monitored by the Dst index. Do the tail cur- There are two severe problems associated with the
rents and the field-aligned currents have an appreciable presentevaluationof Dst index (see also the related
effect? We also do not know the relative contribution discussion
by Baumjohann [1986]). The first of these
of symmetric and asymmetric currents to the total ring relates to the fact that only four stations are used
current being monitored by the Dst index. to compute values. Because the low-latitude pertur-
Finally, in situ monitoring of particle and energycom- bation magnetic field is also influenced by contribu-
position of the ring current has reached a mature stage tions from substorm-relatedcurrent systems(namely,
[e.g.,Roelofand Williams, 1988],but the crucialques- the asymmetric ring current describedby Kamide and
tion concerning the origin of this composition is not Fukushima [1972] and by Clauer and McPherron
yet settled. With referenceto Figure 9, for instance, it [1978],involvingfield-alignedcurrents,the ionospheric
would be interesting to know how such diverse mech- currents[cf. Takahashiet al., 1991],and by the occa-
anisms affect different particle speciesand energiesin sional collapse of the cross-tail current near the inner
ring current formation. This knowledgewould certainly
edgeof the plasmasheet [cf. Lui et al., 1991b]), it
help us to understandmore about the storm/substorm is very difficult to extract the effect of the asymmetric
relationship problem, since some of these mechanisms component of the disturbance field from the symmet-
seem to be more directly governed by the enhanced ric component which is supposedto be represented by
magnetospheric convection, whereas others appear to Dst. It would be very valuable to increase the station
be associated more with the substorm dynamics it- coveragefor the Dst network so as to minimize this
self. Considering the studies presented by Lyons and source of error. This network should be located be-
Williams [1980],LyonsandSchulz [1989],and Chenet low the Sq focus to minimize the effectsdue to changes
al. [1992],mentionedin section5.1 of this paper, one in the position of the focus and above the equatorial
could expect that the direct role of the magnetospheric electrojet(about 50 to 20øN and S). A secondmajor
convection(dc) electricfield in energizingthe ring cur- problem relates to the fact that the measured magnetic
rent would be more efficientat the lower-energydomain field perturbations are not correctedfor Earth induction
(around40 keV) of the ring currentparticles,whereas effects. This, in itself, might not be a severeproblem
substorm-associated (ac) electricfieldswouldplaya ma- if the conductivity under all the stations was relatively
jor role at higher energies. However, the knowledgeof uniform. Unfortunately, this is not the case, particu-
this relative role should be incorporated with that in- larly for stations that are located on coastlinesor on
volving other important factors, suchas those discussed islands. For example, the station of Honolulu is located
in section 4 of this paper, in efforts to understand the on a volcanically active island chain, and preliminary
total role of substorm dynamics in the storm time-ring study of the Sq variation of the data from that station
current development. suggestsit to be severelyanomalous.It is recommended
that all Dst stations have their subsurfaceconductivity
7. Recommendations structure investigatedfor the purposeof developingcor-
rection terms for any conductivity anomaliesthat might
be present.
7.1. Recommended Improvements in Existing
If one is to try to establish a relationship between
Indices to Facilitate the Study of Magnetic
Storms storm and substorm activity, it is advantageousto try
to improvethe auroralelectrojetindices(AL, AU, and
In trying to establish the characteristicdevelopment AE) so as to providethe most accurateestimatesof
and decay of magnetic storms, many researcherstry to the eastwardand westwardcurrent flowing in the auro-
quantify the level of geomagneticactivity using indices ral ionosphere. These indices are derived from the N-S
derived from ground-basedmagnetograms. However, components of the perturbation magnetic field at 12
those indices suffer from several deficiencies which re- stations distributed around the world. They actually
duce their effectiveness
in establishingthe strength and represent the envelope of the ensemble of time series
temporal developmentof magnetosphericactivity. of values from the contributing stations, and, as such,
First and foremost amongstthese indices,for the pur- may not resemble the actual variation of the perturba-
5788 GONZALEZ ET AL.: REVIEW PAPER

tion magnetic field at any particular station. Proba- the polew•ard

portionof the electrojets[Kisabeth,1972].
bly the most important source of error in establishing Such a measure would be quite desirable;however,it is
the strength of the auroral electrojet lies in the fixed likely to be achievableonly when the polar cap has ex-
locale of the contributing stations. The stations are panded considerably. This is becauseclosedfield lines
relatively well distributed in longitude and are located may often extend polewardof the region of auroral lumi-
near the averageposition of the auroral oval near mag- nosity normally identified with the auroral oval. Thus
netic midnight. During periods of relative quiet, the the electrojet border, particularly during quiet times,
average position of the auroral oval is poleward of the may lie significantly equatorward of the boundary be-
AE stations and thus, while there may be current flow- tween open and closedfield lines. Despite this qualifica-
ing in the electrojets, the AE stations are unable to tion, for events which develop into major geomagnetic
monitor that current since the N-S component of the storms, the poleward edgeof the electrojet is likely to be
perturbation magnetic field drops off rapidly from the rather close to the boundary between open and closed
edgesof the electrojet(s).Furthermore,whenit is very field lines shortly before the eventswhich lead to signif-
active, the auroral electrojets are driven to latitudes icant ring current enhancement.
significantly equatorward of the average locale of the Accordingly,we recommendthat the area of the polar
AE stations. In this case, as well, the actual level of cap be monitored by upgraded meridian lines approxi-
ionosphericcurrent strength can be severelyunderesti- mately 1800 apart at high latitudes, with the colatitude
mated. This particular problem could be minimized by of the polar cap boundary being evaluated by the po-
the following suggestions. sition of the Z component extremum in the poleward
1. Improve the coverageof stations contributing to portion of the auroral electrojets.
AE by includingthe contributionsfrom stationsslightly
7.2. Solar Wind Monitoring
to the north and south of existing AE stations. The use
of data from four stations, a coupleof degreespoleward Since the ISEE 3 spacecraftmonitored the solar wind
and equatorward of two of the AE observatories,which continuously
(for a few yearsaround1980)at a vantage
are approximately 1800 separated in longitude, would position such as the L1 inner Lagrangian point of the
significantly improve the index. Earth-Sun system, no other spacecraft has been dedi-
2. Use a forward model of the electrojets to com- cated to such type of observations. As a consequence,
pute H/Z ratios at differentdistancesfrom the center the study of the solar wind-magnetosphereinteraction
of the model electrojets, and use those ratios to com- during the last decadewas reduced to monitoring dis-
parewith observedH/Z ratiosat the AE observatories. continuouseventsonly whengeocenteredsatellites,such
This would allow one to predict the maximum value as IMP 8, happened to be sporadically in the solar wind.
of the N-S magnetic perturbation field at any station Therefore very important magnetic storm events such
(whichwouldoccurdirectlyunderthe centerof the au- as that of March 1989 (Dst around-600 nT!) passed
roral electrojet).While implementingthis procedureis without a record of the associated solar wind parame-
more complex in the region of the Harang discontinu- ters.
ity (wherea westwardjet may flow at the polar edge Continuously monitoring the solar wind at L1 also
of the eastward electrojet during substorm expansive provides the needed information to compute the solar-
phaseactivity) it is still better than allowinga situa- wind pressurecorrectedDst* index. Consequentlythere
tion to develop in which the observation site is at the have been recent efforts to propose projects, especially
interface between the eastward and westward electro-
within the International Solar Terrestrial Program, in
jets. For such a circumstance, the N-S component of order to have solar wind monitors at L1 in the near fu-
the perturbation will be zero, and the strength of the ture. For instancethe text of IAGA Resolution13 (p.
electrojets in that local time sector will be grosslyun- 36), passedat the ViennaAssembly,August1991,reads
derestimated. as follows:
Finally, we note that in evaluating the level of mag-
netosphericactivity, one ought to considerthe amount IAGA, noting that advancedtechnologicalsystems
of magneticflux storedin the magnetotail as this may (especiallyelectric power distribution and radio
be an indicator of how large the storm time ring current communications) are increasinglysensitiveto nat-
may ultimately become. It is well known that the size ural variations in the Earth's magnetic field, mag-
of the polar cap is a measure of the amount of mag- netosphere and ionosphere, and noting that con-
netic flux threading the tail lobes and hence a measure siderable progresshas been made in quantitative
of the colatitude of the equatorward edge of the open understandingof the physicalrelations betweenso-
field line region. This would be a usefulindicator of the lar wind parameters and the responsesin geophys-
amount of stored energy which might be availablefor ical parameters, recommendsthat the solar wind
depositionin the ring current. One possiblemeasureof plasma and interplanetary magnetic field parame-
this position may be the evaluation of the position of ters be monitored upstream of the Earth in near
the polewardedgeof the eastward(westward)electro- real-time, and that the data be distributed interna-
jet in the evening(morning)sector.Thesepositionsare tionally to anticipate possibleterrestrial responses
marked by the extreme value of the Z componentsin to severe solar wind fluctuations.
 GONZALEZ ET AL.: REVIEW
Acknowledgments. W.D.G. would like to thank the
Instituto Nacionalde PesquisasEspaciais(INPE) and the
FundamCode Amparo k Pesquisa do Estado de S•o Paulo
(FAPESP) of Brazil, as well as the Centro Latino Ame- 19 621, 1992.
ricano de Ffsica (CLAF) for supportingthe organization Choe, G. S., N. La Belle Hammer, B. T. Tsurutani, and L.
of the "Storm/Substorm"Workshop,held in S•o Josddos
Campos-S•o Paulo during November 5-8, 1991. The Work-
shop provided the basic framework for the discussion in
this review paper. The authors are grateful to the impor-
tant contributions provided by S.-I. Akasofu and acknowl-
edge discussionswith W. Baumjohann, G. L. Siscoe, M.
Sugiura, and A. L. Clfia de Gonzalez. They would also like
to thank R. M. MacMahon for helping with the manuscript.
The editor thanks R. L. McPherron and S. I. Akasofu
their assistancein evaluating this paper
References
Akasofu, S.-I., Polar and Magnetospheric Substorms, D.
Reidel, Norwell, Mass., 1968.
Akasofu, S.-I., Energy coupling between the solar wind and
the magnetosphere, SpaceSci. Rev., 28, 111, 1981a.
Akasofu, S.-I., Relationship between the AE and Dst indices
during geomagneticstorms, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 4820,
1981b.
Akasofu, S.-I., and S. Chapman, Solar Terrestrial Physics,
Clarendon, Oxford, 1972.
Arnoldy, R.L., Signature in interplanetary medium for sub-
storms, J. Geophys. Res., 76, 5189, 1971.
Baker, D.N., E.W. Hones, Jr., J.B. Payne, and W.C.
Feldman, A high-time resolution study of interplanetary
parameter correlationswith AE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 8,
179, 1981.
Baker, D.N., R.D. Zwickl, S.J. Bame, E.W. Hones, Jr., B.T.
Tsurutani, E.J. Smith, and S.-I. Akasofu, An ISEE-3 high
time resolution study of interplanetary parameter corre-
lations with magnetosphericactivity, J. Geophys. Res.,
88, 6230, 1983.
Baker, D.N., A.J. Klimas, and D.A. Roberts, Examination
of time variable input effectsin a nonlinear analoguemag-
netosphericmodel, Geophys. Res. Lett., 18, 1631, 1991.
Bargatze, L.F., D.N. Baker, R.L. McPherron, and E.W.
Hones Jr., Magnetosphericimpulse responsefor many lev-
els of geomagneticactivity, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 6387,
1985.
Bargatze, L.F., D.N. Baker, R.L. McPherron, Solar wind-
magnetosphereenergy input functions, in Solar Wind-
Magnetosphere Coupling, edited by Y. Kamide and J.A.
Slavin, pp. 101-109, Terra Scientific, Tokyo, 1986.
Baumjohann, W., Merits and limitations on the use of geo-
magnetic indices,in Solar Wind-MagnetosphereCoupling,
edited by Y. Kamide and J.A. Slavin, pp. 3-15, Terra Sci-
entific, Tokyo, 1986.
Burton, R.K., R.L. McPherron, and C.T. Russell, An em-
pirical relationship between interplanetary conditions and
Dst, J. Geophys. Res., 80, 4204, 1975.
Campbell, W.H., Occurrence of AE and Dst geomagnetic
index levels and the selection of the quietest days in a
year, J. Geophys. Res., 8•, 875, 1979.
Carovillano, R.L, and G.L. Siscoe, Energy and momentum
theoremsin magnetosphericprocesses,Rev. Geophys.,11,
289, 1973.
Chappell, C.R., Measurement of the morphology and dy-
namicsof the plasmasphere,Rev. Geophys.,10, 951, 1972.
Chapman, S., Earth storms: retrospect and prospect, J.
Phys. Soc. Jpn., 17, 6, 1962.
Chapman, S., and J. Bartels, Geomagnetism, vol. I chap.
IX, Clarendon, Oxford, 1940.
PAPER 5789
Chen, M.W., M. Schulz, L.R. Lyons, and D.J. Gorney,
Ion radial diffusion in an electrostatic impulse model for
stormtime ring current formation, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
C. Lee, Identification of a driver gas boundary layer, Eos,
Trans. AGU, 73, 485, 1992.
Clauer, C.R., The technique of linear prediction filters ap-
plied to studies of solar wind-magnetospherecoupling, in
Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Coupling, edited by Y. Kamide
and J.A. Slavin, pp. 39-57, Terra Scientific, Tokyo, 1986.
Clauer, C.R. and R.L. McPherron, On the relationship of
the partial ring current to substorms and the interplan-
for etary magnetic field, J. Geomagn. Geoelectr., 30, 195,
1978.
Clauer, C.R., R.L. McPherron, and C. Sends, Solar wind
control of the low-latitude asymmetric magnetic field dis-
turbance, J. Geophys. Res., 88, 2123, 1983.
Clfia de Gonzalez, A. L., W. D. Gonzalez, and B. T.
Tsurutani, Periodic variation in the geomagnetic activity:
A study based on the Ap index, J. Geophys. Res., 98,
9215, 1993.
Cornwall, J.M., On the role of chargeexchangein generating
unstable wavesin the ring current, J. Geophys. Res., 87,
1188, 1977.
Cornwall, J.M., F.V. Coroniti, and R.M. Thorne, Turbulent
loss ring current protons, J. Geophys. Res., 75, 4699,
1970.
Cortie, A. L., The efficiency of sun-spots in relation to ter-
restrial magnetic disturbances, Mon. Not. R. Astron.
Soc., 76, 15, 1915.
Cowley, S.W.H., Solar wind control of magnetosphericcon-
vection, in Proceedingsof the ConferenceAchievementsof
the IMS, European SpaceAgency, ESA-SP-œ17, Paris, p.
483, 1984.
Crooker, N.U., E.W. Cliver, and B.T. Tsurutani, The semi-
annum variation of great geomagnetic storms and the
postshock Russell-McPherron effect preceding coronal
mass ejecta, Geophys. Res. Lett., 19, 429, 1992.
Davis, T.N., Temporal behavior of energy injection into the
geomagnetic ring current, J. Geophys. Res., 74{, 6266,
1969.
Davis, T.N., and R. Parthasarathy, The relationship be-
tween polar magnetic activity DP and the growth of the
geomagnetic ring current, J. Geophys. Res., 7œ, 5825,
1967.
Dessler, A. J., and E. N. Parker, Hydromagnetic theory of
magnetic storms, J. Geophys.Res., 6•, 2239, 1959.
Detman, T. R., T. Yeh, S. M. Han, S. T. Wu, and D. J. Mc-
Comas, A time-dependent, three-dimensional MHD nu-
merical study of interplanetary magnetic draping ground
pinsmolds in the solar wind, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 9531,
1991.
Doyle, M.A., and W.J. Burke, S3-2 measurements of the
polar cap potential, J. Geophys. Res., 88, 9125, 1983.
Dryer, M. S., S. T. Wu, C. C. Wu, •nd S. M. Hah, Helio-
spheric current sheet effects on the propagation of solar-
generated shock-waves,in Proceedingsof the 26th ESLAB
Symposium-Study of the Solar-Terrestrial System, Euro-
pean SpaceAgency, ESA-SP-3•6, Paris, p. 77, 1992.
Dungey, J.W., Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral
zones, Phys. Rev. Lett., 6, 47, 1961.
F/ilthammar, C.-G., Effects of time-dependent electric fields
on geomagnetically trapped radiation, J. Geophys. Res.,
70, 2503, 1965.
Fay, R.A., C.R. Garrity, R.L. McPherron, and L.F. Bar-
gatze, Prediction filters for the D st index and the po-
5790 GONZALEZ ET AL.:
lar cap potential, in Solar Wind-MagnetosphereCoupling,
edited by Y. Kamide and J.A. Slavin, pp. 111-117, Terra
Scientific, Tokyo, 1986.
Feldstein, Y.I., Modeling of the magnetic field of mag-
netospheric ring current as a function of interplanetary
medium parameters, Space Sci. Rev., 59, 83, 1992.
Feldstein, Y.I., V.Y. Pisarsky, N.M. Rudneva, and A. Grafe,
Ring current simulation in connectionwith interplanetary
space conditions, Planet. Space Sci., 32, 975, 1984.
Fok, M.C., J.U. Kozyra, A.F. Nagy, and T.E. Cravens, Life-
time of ring current particles due to Coulomb collisionsin
the plasmasphere, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 7861, 1991.
Goertz, C. K., L.-H. Shah, and R. A. Smith, Prediction of
geomagnetic activity, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 7673, 1993.
Gold, T., Magnetic storms, Space Sci. Rev., 1, 100, 1962.
Gonzalez, W.D., A unified view of solarwind-magnetosphere
coupling functions, Planet. Space Sci. 38, 627, 1990.
Gonzalez, W.D., Flux transfer events and reconnection at
the magnetopause,Eos, Trans. A GU, 72, 431, 1991.
Gonzalez, W.D., and F.S. Mozer, A quantitative model for
the potential resulting from reconnection with an arbi-
trary interplanetary magnetic field, J. Geophys. Res., 79,
4186, 1974.
Gonzalez, W.D., and A.L.C. Gonzalez, Solar wind energy
transfer to the Earth's magnetospherevia magnetopause
reconnection, Geophys. Res. Lett., 8, 265, 1981.
Gonzalez, W.D., and B.T. Tsurutani, Criteria of inter-
planetary parameters causing intense magnetic storms
(Dst < -100 nT), Planet. SpaceSci., 35, 1101, 1987.
Gonzalez, W.D., and B.T. Tsurutani, Terrestrial response
to eruptive solar flares: Geomagnetic storms, in Eruptive
Solar Flares, edited by Z. Svestka, B.V. Jackson,and M.E.
Machado, pp. 277-286, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.
Gonzalez, W.D., B.T. Tsurutani, A.L.C. Gonzalez, E.J.
Smith, F. Tang and S.-I. Akasofu, Solar wind-magneto-
sphere coupling during intense magnetic storms (1978-
1979), J. Geophys.Res., 9•, 8835, 1989.
Gonzalez, W.D., A.L.C. Gonzalez, and B.T. Tsurutani,
Dual-peak solar cycle distribution of intense geomagnetic
storms, Planet. Space Sci., 38, 181, 1990.
Gonzalez, W.D., A.L. Clfia de Gonzalez, O. Mendes Jr., and
B.T. Tsurutani, Difficulties defining storm sudden com-
mencements, Eos, Trans. A GU, 73, 180, 1992.
Gonzalez, W.D., A.L. Chia de Gonzalez, and B.T. Tsurutani,
Comment on "The semiannual variation of great geomag-
netic storms and the postshock Russell-McPherron effect
preceding coronal mass ejecta" by N.U. Crooker, E.W.
Cliver and B.T. Tsurutani, Geophys.Res. Left., 20, 1659,
1993.
Gosling, J.T., D.N. Baker, S.J. Bame, W.C. Feldman, R.D.
Zwickl, and E.J. Smith, Bidirectional solar wind electron
heat flux events, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 8519, 1987.
Gosling, J. T., D. J. McComas, J. L. Phillips, and S.J. Bame,
Geomagnetic activity associated with Earth passage of
interplanetary shock disturbances and coronal mass ejec-
tions, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 7831, 1991.
Hamilton, D.C., G. Gloeckner, F.M. Ipavich, W. Studemann,
B. Wilkey, and G. Kremser, Ring current development
during the great geomagnetic storm of February 1986, J.
Geophys. Res., 93, 14,343, 1988.
Haerendel, G., G. Paschmann, N. Sckopke, H. Rosenbauer,
and P.C. Hedgecock, The frontside boundary layer on
the magnetosphere and the problem of reconnection, J.
Geophys. Res., 83, 3195, 1978.
Holzer, R.E., and J.A. Slavin, An evaluation of three predic-
tors of geomagnetic activity, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 2558,
1982.
Iyemori, T., H. Maeda, and T. Kamei, Impulse responseof
geomagnetic indices to interplanetary magnetic field, J.
Georaagn. Geoelectr., 6, 577, 1979.
REVIEW PAPER
Joselyn, J.A., and B.T. Tsurutani, Geomagnetic sudden im-
pulses and storm sudden commencements, Eos, Trans.
A G U, 71, 1808, 1990.
Kamide, Y., Is substorm occurrence a necessary condition
for a magnetic storm?, J. Geomagn. Geoelectr., •l•l, 109,
1992.
Kamide, Y., and N. Fukushima, Positive geomagneticbays
in evening high-latitudes and their possible connection
with partial ring current, Rep. Ionos. Space Res. Jpn.,
œ5, 125, 1971.
Kamide, Y. and N. Fukushima, Analysis of magnetic storms
with DR-indices for equatorial ring current field, Rep.
Ionos. Space Res. Jpn., œ6, 79, 1972.
Kamide, Y., and J.A. Joselyn, Toward a standardized defini-
tion of geomagneticsudden commencements,Eos, Trans.
AGU, 72, 300, 1991.
Kamide, Y., P.D. Perrault, S.-I. Akasofu, and J.D.
Winningham, Dependenceof substorm occurrenceproba-
bility on the interplanetary magnetic field and on the size
of the auroral oval, J. Geophys. Res., 82, 5521, 1977.
Kan, J.R., and L.C. Lee, Energy coupling functions and
solar wind-magnetospheredynamo, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
6, 577, 1979.
Kauffman, R.L., Substorms currents: growth phase and on-
set, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 7471, 1987.
King, J. H., Solar wind parameters and magnetosphere
coupling studies, in Solar Wind-MagnetosphereCoupling,
edited by Y. Kamide and J.A. Slavin, pp. 163-177, Terra
Scientific, Tokyo, 1986.
Kisabeth, J.L., The dynamical development of the polar
electrojets, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Canada, 1972.
Klein, L.W., and L.F. Burlaga, Magnetic clouds at 1 AU, J.
Geophys. Res., 87, 613, 1982.
Klimas, A.J., D.N. Baker, D.A. Roberts, and D.H. Fairfield,
A. nonlinear dynamical analogue model of geomagnetic
activity, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 12,253, 1992.
Kokubun, S., Relationship of interplanetary field structure
with development of substorm and storm main phase,
Planet. Space Sci., 20, 1033, 1972.
Langel, R.A., and R.H. Estes, Large-scale, near-earth mag-
netic fields from external sources and the corresponding
induced internal sources, NASA, Tech. Memo. TM-
85012, 1983.
Legrand, J.P., and P.A. Simon, A two-component solar cy-
cle, Solar Physics, 131, 187, 1991.
Lui, A.T.Y., R.W. McEntire, and S.M. Krimigis, Evolu-
tion of the ring current during two magnetic storms, J.
Geophys. Res., 92, 7459, 1987.
Lui, A.T.Y., C.-L. Chang, A. Mankofsky, H.-K. Wong, and
D. Winske, A cross-field current instability for substorm
expansions, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 11,389, 1991a.
Lui, A.T.Y., R.E.. Lopez, B.J. Anderson, K. Takahashi, L.J.
Zanetti, R.W. McEntire, T.A. Potemra, D.M. Klumpar,
E.M. Greene, and R. Strangeway, Current disruptions in
the near-Earth neutral sheet region, J. Geophys. Res., 97,
1461, 1991b.
Lyons, L.R., and D.S. Evans, The inconsistency between
proton charge exchange and the observedring current de-
cay, J. Geophys. Res., 81, 6197, 1976.
Lyons, L.R., and D.J. Williams, A sourcefor the geomag-
netic storm main phase ring current, J. Geophys. Res.,
85, 523, 1980.
Lyons L.R., and M. Schulz, Accessof energetic particles to
storm-time ring current through enhanced radial "diffu-
sion,"J. Geophys. Res., 9•, 5491, 1989.
Marubashi, K., Structure of the interplanetary magnetic
cloudsand their solarorigins,Adv. SpaceRes., 6(6), 335,
1986.
 GONZALEZ ET AL.: REVIEW
Matsushita, S., A study of the morphology of ionospheric
storms, J. Geophys. Res., 6J, 305, 1959.
Mauk, B.H., and C.-I. Meng, Plasma injection during sub-
storms, Phys. Scripta, T18, 128, 1987.
Mayaud, P.N., Derivation, Meaning, and Use of Geomag-
netic Indices, Geophys. Monogr. Set. , vol. 22, AGU,
Washington D.C., 1980.
McComas, D.J., J.T. Gosling, S.J. Bame, E.J. Smith, and
H.V. Cane, A test of magnetic field draping induced
Bz perturbations ahead of fast coronal mass ejecta, J.
Geophys. Res., 9J, 1465, 1989.
McIlwain, C.E., Substorm injection boundaries,in Magneto-
spheric Physics, edited by McCormac, p. 143, D. Reidel,
Norwell, Mass., 1974.
Mendes, O. Jr., W.D. Gonzalez, A.L.C. Gonzalez, O. Pinto
Jr., and B.T. Tsurutani, Solar wind-magnetospherecou-
pling during moderategeomagnetic
storms(1978-1979),
Adv. SpaceRes., in press 1994.
Menvielle, M., and A. Bertbelief, The K-derived planetary
indices: Description and availability, Rev. Geophys., œ9,
415, 1991.
Murayama, T., Coupling between solar wind and the Dst
index, in Solar Wind-MagnetosphereCoupling,edited by
Y. Kamide and J.A. Slavin, pp. 119-126, Terra Scientific,
Tokyo, 1986.
Murayama, T., and K. Hakamada, Effects of solar wind
parameters on the development of magnetospheric sub-
storms, Planet. Space Sci., œ3,75, 1975.
Perreault, P., and S.-I. Akasofu, A study of geomagnetic
storms, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Sci., 5J, 547, 1978.
Petschek,H.E., Magnetic field annihilation, in AAS-MASA
Symposiumon Physicsof Solar Flares, NASA Spec. Publ.
50, 425, 1964.
Pisarskij, V. Yu, Ya. I. Feldstein, N.M. Rudenova, and A.
Prigancova, Ring current and interplanetary medium pa-
rameters, Studia Geophys. Geod., 33, 61, 1989.
PrigancovaA., and Ya. I. Feldstein, Magnetosphericstorm
dynamics in terms of energy output rate, Planet. Space
Sci., J0, 581, 1992.
Pytte, T., R.L. McPherron, E.W. Hones, Jr., and H.I. West,
Multiple-satellite studies of magnetospheric substorms:
distinction between polar magnetic substorm and con-
vection driven negative bay, Planet. Space Sci., 83, 663,
1978.
Reiff, P.H., R.W. Spiro, and T.W. Hill, Dependence of po-
lar cap potential drop on interplanetary electric field, J.
Geophys. Res., 86, 7639, 1981.
Rodof, E.C., and D.J. Williams, The terrestrial ring current:
from in situ measurementsto global images using ener-
getic neutral atoms, in Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig.,
9, (2), 144-163, 1988.
Rostoker, G., Geomagnetic indices, Rev. Geophys.,10, 935,
1972.
Rostoker, G., and•C.-G. F'•.lthammar, Relationship between
changes in the interplanetary magnetic field and vari-
ations in the magnetic field at the Earth's surface, J.
Geophys. Res., 712,5853, 1967.
Rostoker, G., L. Lam, and W.D. Hume, Responsetime of the
magnetosphereto the interplanetary electric field, Can. J.
Phys., 50, 544, 1972.
Rostoker, G., S.-I. Akasofu, J. Foster, R.A. Greenwald, Y.
Kamide, K. Kawasaki, A.T.Y. Lui, R.L. McPherron and
C.T. Russell, Magnetospheric substorms: Definition and
signatures,J. Geophys.Res., 85, 1663, 1980.
Rostoker, G., S.-I. Akasofu, W. Baumjohann, Y. Kamide,
and R.L. McPherron, The roles of direct input of energy
from [he solar wind UILIUcLUlIL
energy in driving magnetosphericsubstorms, Space Sci.
Rev., •6, 93, 1987.
PAPER 5791
Russell, C.T., and R.L. McPherron, Semiannual variation of
geomagneticactivity. J. Geophys.Res., 78, 92, 1973.
Russell, C.T., R.L. McPherron and R.K. Burton, On the
causeof geomagneticstorms, J. Geophys.Res., 79, 1105,
1974.
Russell, C.T., and R.C. Elphic, ISEE observationsof flux
transfer events at the dayside magnetopause, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 6, 33, 1979.
Saba, M., W.D. Gonzalez, and A.L.C. Gonzalez, Relation-
ships between the Dst, ap and AE indices, Adv. Space
Res., in press 1994.
Sckopke, N., A general relation between the energy of
trapped particles and the disturbancefield near the Earth,
J. Geophys. Res., 71, 3125, 1966.
Sergeev, V., and W. Lennartsson, Plasma sheet at X m
-20 Re during steady magnetosphericconvection,Planet.
Space Sci., 36, 353, 1988.
Siscoe,G.L., Energy couplingbetweenregion 1 and 2 Birke-
land current systems, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 5124, 1982.
Smith, E.J., J.A. Slavin, R.D. Zwickl, and S.J. Bame, Shocks
and storm suddencommencements,in Solar Wind-Magne-
tosphere Coupling, edited by Y. Kamide and J.A. Slavin,
pp. 345-365, Terra Scientific, Tokyo, 1986.
Smith, P.H., R.A. Hoffman, and T.A. Fritz, Ring current
proton decay by charge exchange, J. Geophys. Res., 81,
2701, 1976.
Solomon, J., and O. Picon, Charge exchangeand wave par-
ticle interaction in the proton ring current, J. Geophys.
Res., 86, 3375, 1981.
Sonnerup, B.U.O., Magnetic field reconnectionat the mag-
netopause: An overview, in Magnetic Reconnection in
Space and Laboratory Plasmas, Geophys. Monogr. Set.,
vol. 30, edited by E.W. Hones, Jr., pp. 92-103, AGU,
Washington, D.C., 1984.
Spjeldvik, W.N., Transport, charge exchange and loss of
energetic heavy ions in the Earth's radiation belts: Ap-
plicability and limitations to theory, Planet. Space Sci.,
129,1215, 1981.
Stern, D.P., Energetics of the magnetosphere, Space Sci.
Rev., 39, 193, 1984.
Sugiura, M., Hourly values of equatorial Dst for the IGY,
Annual International Geophysical Year, vol. 35, p. 9,
Pergamon, New York, 1964.
Sugiura, M., Equatorial current sheetin the magnetosphere,
J. Geophys. Res., 77, 6093, 1972.
Sugiura, M., What do we expect in magnetic activity in the
current solar cycle?, Eos, Trans. AGU, 61, 673, 1980.
Sugiura, M., and S. Chapman, The averagemorphology of
geomagneticstormswith suddencommencement,A bandl.
Akad. Wiss., GottingenMath. Phys. K1 (4), 1960.
Sugiura, M., and T. Kamei, Equatorial Dst index 1957-
1986, IAGA Bulletin, 40, edited by A. BerthelJer and
M. Menvielle,ISGI Publ. Off., Saint. Maur-des-Fosses,
France, 1991.
Takahashi, S., T. Iyemori, and M. Takeda, A simulation of
the storm-time ring current, Planet. SpaceSci., 38, 1133,
1990.
Takahashi, S., M. Takeda, and Y. Yamada, Simulation of
storm-time partial ring current system and the dawn-dusk
ßsymmetry of geomagneticvariation, Planet. SpaceSci.,
39, 821, 1991.
Tinsley, B.A., Evidence that the recovery ring current con-
sists of Helium ions, J. Geophys. Res., 81, 6193, 1976.
Tsurutani, B.T., and C.I. Meng, Interplanetary magnetic
field variations and substorm activity, J. Geophys. Res.,
77, 2964, 1972.
Tsurutani, B.T., and W.D. GonzMez, The cause of high-
(HILDCAAs): interplanetaryAlfv•n wavetrMns, Planet.
Space Sci., 35, 405, 1987.
5792 GONZALEZ ET AL.:
Tsurutani, B.T., C.T. Russell, J.H. King, R.D. Zwickl, and
R.P. Lin, A kinky heliospheric current sheet: Cause of
CDAW 6 substorms, Geophys. Res. Left., 11, 339, 1984.
Tsurutani, B.T., W.D. Gonzalez, F. Tang, S.-I. Akasofu, and
E.J. Smith, Origin of interplanetary southward magnetic
fields responsiblefor majo•r magnetic storms near solar
maximum(1978-1979), J. Geophys.Res., 93, 8519, 1988.
Tsurutani, B.T., W.D. Gonzalez, F. Tang, Y.T. Lee and M.
Okada, Reply to L. J. Lanzerotti: Solar wind ram pressure
corrections and an estimation of the efficiency of viscous
interaction, Geophys. Res. Left., 19, 1993, 1992a.
Tsurutani, B.T., W.D. Gonzalez, F. Tang, and Y. Te Lee,
Great magnetic storms, Geophys. Res. Left., 19, 73,
1992b.
Vassiliadis, D., A. S. Sharma, and K. Papadopoulos, An
empirical model relating the auroral geomagneticactivity
to the interplanetary magnetic field, Geophys. Res. Left.,
20, 1731, 1993.
Vasyliunas, V.M., Theoretical models of magnetic field line
merging, 1, Rev. Geophys.,13, 303, 1975.
Vasyliunas, V.M., Contribution to Dialog on the relative
roles of reconnection and the "viscous"interaction in pro-
viding solar-wind energy to the magnetosphere,in Magne-
totail Physics,edited by A.T.¾. Lui, pp. 411-412, Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1987.
Vasyliunas, V.M., J.R. Kan, G.L. Siscoe, and S.-I. Akasofu,
Scaling relations governing magnetosphereenergy trans-
fer, Planet. Space Sci., $0, 359, 1982.
Wang, X., A. Bhattacharjee, and A.T.Y. Lui, Collisionless
tearing instability in magnetotail plasmas, J. Geophys.
Res., 95, 15,047, 1990.
Weiss, L.A., P.H. Reiff, J.J. Moses, and B.D. Moore, Energy
dissipation in substorms, Eur. Space Agency Spec. Publ.
ESA-SP-$$5, 309-319, 1992.
Williams, D.J., Dynamics of the Earth's ring current: theory
and observation, Space Sci. Rev., J2, 375, 1985.
Wodnicka, E.B., What does the magnetic storm develop-
ment depend on?, Planet. Space Sci., 39, 1163, 1991.
Wu, S. T., C.-C. Wu, and M. Dryer, Three-dimensional nu-
REVIEW PAPER
merical simulation of interplanetary magnetic field changes
at 1 AU as a consequenceof simulated solar flares, in
Proceedingsof the 26th ESLAB Symposium-Studyof the
Solar-Terrestrial System, Eur. Space Agency Spec. Publ.
ESA-SP-3J6,, 33-336, 1992.
Wygant, J.R., R.B. Tobert, and F.S. Mozer, Comparison
of S3-3 polar cap potential drops with the interplanetary
magneticfield andmodelsof magnetopause
reconnection,
J. Geophys. Res., 85, 5727, 1983.
Zhao, X., Interaction of fast steady flow with slow tran-
sient flow: A new cause of interplanetary Bz events, J.
Geophys. Res., 97, 15,051, 1992.
Zwan, B.J., and R.A. Wolf, Depletion of solar wind plasma
near a planetaryboundary,J. Geophys.Res., 81, 1636,
1976.
Zwickl, R.D., J.R. Asbridge,S.J. Bame, W.C. Feldman,J.T.
Gosling, and E.J. Smith, Plasma properties of driver gas
following interplanetary shocksobservedby ISEE-3, in
Solar Wind Five, NASA Conf. Publ., CP-2280, 711, 1983.
W. D. Gonzalez and J. A. Joselyn, National Oceanic.and
Atmospheric Administration, Environmental ResearchLab-
oratory,325 Broadway,Boulder, CO 80303-33280.(e-maih
selvax::wgonzalez
and selvax::jjoselyn)
Y. Kamide, Solar Terrestrial Environmental Laboratory,
Nagoya University, Honohara, 3-13, Toyokawa, 442 Japan.
(e-mail: 41945::kamide)
H. W. Kroehl, NGDC E/GC2, NOAA, 325 Broadway,
Boulder,CO 80303. (e-mail: kryos::kroehl)
G Rostoker, Department of Physics, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G1 Canada. (e-mail:
18642::rostoker)
B. T. Tsurutani, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak
GroveDr., Pasadena,CA 91109. (e-mail:jplsp::btsurutani)
V. M. Vasyliunas, Max Planck Institute fiir Aeronomie,
Katlenburg-Lindau, D-3411 Germany. (e-mail: ecdl::
linmpi::vasyliunas)
(ReceivedMay 24, 1993;revisedOctober 1, 1993;
acceptedOctober1, 1993.)