4.1 Article

East Asian observations of low-latitude aurora during the Carrington magnetic storm

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pasj/psw097

关键词

catalogs; history and philosophy of astronomy; planets and satellites: aurorae; solar-terrestrial relations; Sun: flares

资金

  1. Center for the Promotion of Integrated Sciences (CPIS) of SOKENDAI
  2. Kyoto University's Supporting Program for Interaction-based Initiative Team Studies Integrated study on human in space
  3. Interdisciplinary Research Idea by the Center of Promotion Interdisciplinary Education and Research
  4. UCHUGAKU project of the Unit of Synergetic Studies for Space
  5. Exploratory and Mission Research Projects of the Research Institute of Sustainable Humanosphere, Kyoto University
  6. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [15H05816, 15H03732, 15H05815]
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16H03955, 15H05815, 15H05816, 15H03732] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A magnetic storm around 1859 September 2, caused by a so-called Carrington flare, was the most intense in the history of modern scientific observations, and hence is considered to be a benchmark event concerning space weather. The magnetic storm caused worldwide observations of auroras, even at very low latitudes, such as Hawaii, Panama, or Santiago. Available magnetic-field measurements at Bombay, India, showed two peaks: the main was the Carrington event, which occurred in day time in East Asia; a second storm after the Carrington event occurred at night in East Asia. In this paper, we present results from surveys of aurora records in East Asia, which provide new information concerning the aurora activity of this important event. We found some new East Asian records of low-latitude aurora observations caused by a storm which occurred after the Carrington event. The size of the aurora belt of the second peak of the Carrington magnetic storm was even wider than that of usual low-latitude aurora events.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据