J. Space Weather Space Clim.
Volume 11, 2021
|Number of page(s)||2|
|Published online||27 April 2021|
The Interplanetary and Magnetospheric causes of Geomagnetically Induced Currents (GICs) > 10 A in the Mäntsälä Finland Pipeline: 1999 through 2019 – Erratum
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91109, USA
2 Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Simrol, Indore 453552, India
* Corresponding author: email@example.com
Accepted: 7 January 2021
In this erratum we rectify the parts of the paper that were not corrected before the publication of the paper. The conclusions of the paper are unchanged.
Key words: GIC / Supersubstorm / Plasma Parcel / Shock / ICME / Superstorm / Errata / Addenda
© B.T. Tsurutani & R. Hajra, Published by EDP Sciences 2021
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
In Section 3, last sentence of the penultimate paragraph on page 4, the onset “shock/SSS” should be replaced by “PP/SSS”, thus reading:
Figure 3 shows the second Halloween magnetic storm on days 303–304 of year 2003. A sheath Bs upstream of an ICME causes a superstorm of intensity SYM-H = −432 nT. A solar wind density spike (PP) at ~1949UT (2249 LT) caused a SI+ of 61 nT and triggered a short duration SSS of SML = −3872 nT. A GIC of 49 A occurred at the time of the PP/SSS onset.
On the next paragraph, a sentence is missing:
A second short duration SML = −2724 nT SSS occurred in the storm main phase. It is associated with a double GIC event with peaks of 33 A and 27 A. There are two clusters of GICs with > 10 A intensities in the storm recovery phase. They are associated with substorm intervals of peak SML intensities of −1821 nT and −797 nT, respectively. In the first cluster there is a GIC of 30 A at 0213 UT on day 304. A PP occurred nearly time-coincident with the GIC. In the second cluster there is a 27 A GIC at 0536 UT on day 304. There is another GIC cluster, well after storm recovery, with 16 A at 1119 UT, 19 A at 1152 UT, 14 A at 1227 UT and 16 A at 1246 UT on day 304.
In Section 3.2, second paragraph of the section, page 8, a miss numbering has not been rectified:
Figure 10 and Table 1 give the detailed information of all Mäntsälä GICs with > 30 A intensities. There are only 21 > 30 A GIC events in the 21-year study period. Thus, these events are quite rare. One of these > 30 A events was related to a shock and five were related to ram pressure increases caused by PPs. Figure 10 gives the information in a graphic format and Table 1 in a tabular form. The plot format in Figure 10 is the same as for Figure 9 but here all > 30 A GICs are shown independent of whether they were shock-related or not.Table 1
Details of the GIC > 30 A events under study.
This correction should have also been added in the first paragraph of Sect. 4.2, page 10:
From Table 1, it is noted that 5 out of the 21 Mäntsälä > 30 A GICs were due to PPs. PPs being time-coincident with Mäntsälä GICs is a new discovery. PPs are the second most geoeffective interplanetary cause (after substorms) for > 30 A GICs. Why were these PPs more geoeffective than shocks? The plasma density increase across a shock is a maximum of ~4 (Kennel et al., 1985), but statistically only a factor of 1–3 (Tsurutani & Lin, 1985). Several of the geoeffective PPs were noted to have considerably higher density increases than ~4.
In Table 1, in first row (for 197/2000) corresponding to Shock/PP column, PP should be replaced by No.
Page 13, the reference Tsurutani et al. (2015), the title of the article should be changed to:
Tsurutani BT, Hajra R, Echer E, Gjerloev JW. 2015. Extremely intense (SML ≤ −2500 nT) substorms: isolated events that are externally triggered? Ann Geophys 22: 519–524. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeocom-33-519-2015.
In the Appendix, page 19, in the Days 303–304 paragraph, a sentence is missing:
Days 303–304 (30–31 October), 2003 (Fig. A27). This event was previously discussed in Results section (Fig. 3). The second “Halloween” superstorm. A sheath Bs upstream of an ICME causes the second October Halloween storm of intensity SYM-H = −432 nT. A solar wind density spike (PP) at ~1949 UT (2249 LT) (denoted by the SI+ of ~61 nT) created a GIC of 49 A and a short-duration SSS of amplitude SML = −3872 nT. Mäntsälä was in the midnight sector at the time. Another PP at 0213 UT day 204 caused a 30 A GIC. A second short-duration SML = −2724 nT SSS occurred in the storm main phase. It is associated with a double GIC of 33 and 27 A. There are two clusters of GICs with > 10 A intensities in the storm recovery phase. They are associated with substorm intervals of peak intensities of SML = −1821 and −797 nT, respectively. In the first cluster there is a GIC of 30 A at 0213 UT on day 304. In the second cluster there is a 27 A GIC at 0536 UT day 304. There is a fourth GIC cluster with 16 A at 1119 UT, 19 A at 1152 UT, 16 A at 1119 UT, 14 A at 1227 UT and 16 A at 1246 UT. There were 90 GICs > 10 A and 3 GICs > 30 A.
- Tsurutani BT, Hajra R, Echer E, Gjerloev JW. 2015. Extremely intense (SML ≤ −2500 nT) substorms: isolated events that are externally triggered? Ann Geophys 22 : 519–524. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeocom-33-519-2015. [Google Scholar]
Cite this article as: Tsurutani BT & Hajra R 2021. The Interplanetary and Magnetospheric causes of Geomagnetically Induced Currents (GICs) > 10 A in the Mäntsälä Finland Pipeline: 1999 through 2019 – Erratum. J. Space Weather Space Clim. 11, 32. https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2021015.
Details of the GIC > 30 A events under study.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.