Comparison of the modelled geoelectric fields of the Carrington and Halloween storms | Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

Open Access

Issue		J. Space Weather Space Clim. Volume 16, 2026


Article Number		4
Number of page(s)		23
DOI		https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2025058
Published online		21 January 2026

Ádám, A, Prácser E, Wesztergom V. 2012. Estimation of the electric resistivity distribution (EURHOM) in the European lithosphere in the frame of the EURISGIC WP2 project. Acta Geod Geophys Hung 47: 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1556/AGeod.47.2012.4.1. [Google Scholar]
Alken, P, Thébault E, Beggan CD, Amit H, Aubert J, et al. 2021. International Geomagnetic Reference Field: the thirteenth generation. Earth Planets Space 73: 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x. [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Al Shidi, Q, Pulkkinen T, Toth G, Brenner A, Zou S, Gjerloev J. 2022. A large simulation set of geomagnetic storms – Can simulations predict ground magnetometer station observations of magnetic field perturbations? Space Weather 20: e2022SW003049. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003049. [Google Scholar]
Allcock, M, Pidgeon A, Black G, Prestwood E, Frayling A, et al. 2025. Severe Space Weather Impacts on UK Critical National Infrastructure. A SWIMMR Project Report. https://epubs.stfc.ac.uk/work/61075921. [Google Scholar]
Apatenkov, SV, Pilipenko VA, Gordeev EI, Viljanen A, Juusola L, Belakhovsky VB, Sakharov YaA, Selivanov VN. 2020. Auroral omega bands are a significant cause of large geomagnetically induced currents. Geophys Res Lett 47: e2019GL086677. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086677. [Google Scholar]
Beggan, CD, Clarke E, Lawrence E, Eaton E, Williamson J, Matsumoto K, Hayakawa H. 2024. Digitized continuous magnetic recordings for the August/September 1859 storms from London, UK. Space Weather, 22: e2023SW003807. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003807. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Blake, SP, Pulkkinen A, Schuck PW, Nevanlinna H, Reale O, Veenadhari B, Mukherjee S. 2020. Magnetic field measurements from Rome during the August–September 1859 Storms. J Geophys Res Space Phys 125: e2019JA027336. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027336. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Blake, SP, Pulkkinen A, Schuck PW, Glocer A, Oliveira DM, Welling D, Weigel RS, Quaresima G. 2021. Recreating the horizontal magnetic field at Colaba during the Carrington event with geospace simulations. Space Weather 19: e2020SW002585. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002585. [Google Scholar]
Bolduc, L. 2002. GIC observations and studies in the Hydro-Québec power system. J Atmos Sol-Terr Phys 64: 1793–1802. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(02)00128-1. [Google Scholar]
Bonner, LR, Schultz A. 2017. Rapid prediction of electric fields associated with geomagnetically induced currents in the presence of three-dimensional ground structure: Projection of remote magnetic observatory data through magnetotelluric impedance tensors. Space Weather 14: 204–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016SW001535. [Google Scholar]
Boteler, DH. 2019. A 21st century view of the March 1989 magnetic storm. Space Weather 17: 1427–1441. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019SW002278. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Boteler, DH, Pirjola RJ, Nevanlinna H. 1998. The effects of geomagnetic disturbances on electrical systems at the Earth’s surface. Adv Space Res 22: 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1177(97)01096-X. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Burrell, AG, van der Meeren C, Laundal KM, van Kemenade H. 2024. aburrell/aacgmv2: Version 2.7.0 (v2.7.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14582758. [Google Scholar]
Cabinet Office. 2023. National Risk Register 2023. p. 192. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1175834/2023_NATIONAL_RISK_REGISTER_NRR.pdf. [Google Scholar]
Caraballo R, González-Esparza JA, Pacheco CR, Corona-Romero P, Arzate-Flores JA, Castellanos-Velazco CI. 2025. The impact of geomagnetically induced currents (GIC) on the Mexican power grid: Numerical modeling and observations from the 10 May, 2024, geomagnetic storm. Geophys Res Lett 52: e2024GL112749. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL112749. [Google Scholar]
Carrington, RC. 1859. Description of a singular appearance seen in the Sun on September 1. Mon Not R Astron Soc 20: 13–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/20.1.13. [Google Scholar]
Clauer, CR, Siscoe G. 2006. The great historical geomagnetic storm of 1859: A modern look. Adv Space Res 38: 117–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2006.09.001. [Google Scholar]
Clilverd, MA, Rodger CJ, Mac Manus DH, Brundell JB, Dalzell M, et al. 2025. Geomagnetically induced currents, transformer harmonics, and reactive power impacts of the Gannon Storm in May 2024. Space Weather 23: e2024SW004235. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024SW004235. [Google Scholar]
Davis, TN, Sugiura M. 1966. Auroral electrojet activity index AE and its universal time variations. J Geophys Res 71: 785–801. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/JZ071i003p00785. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Dimmock, AP, Rosenqvist L, Welling D, Viljanen A, Honkonen I, Boynton RJ, Yordanova E. 2020. On the regional variability of dB/dt and its significance to GIC. Space Weather 18: e2020SW002497. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002497. [Google Scholar]
Eastwood, JP, Biffis E, Hapgood MA, Green L, Bisi MM, Bentley RD, Wicks R, McKinnell L-A, Gibbs M, Burnett C. 2017. The economic impact of space weather: Where do we stand? Risk Anal, 37: 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12765. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ebihara, Y, Watari S, Kumar S. 2022. Prediction of geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) flowing in Japanese power grid for Carrington-class magnetic storms. Earth Planets Space 73: 163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-021-01493-2. [Google Scholar]
Engebretson, MJ, Yang L, Steinmetz ES, Pilipenko VA, Moldwin MB, et al. 2024. Extreme geomagnetic disturbances (GMDs) observed in Eastern Arctic Canada: Occurrence characteristics and solar cycle dependence. J Geophys Res Space Phys 129: e2023JA031643. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JA031643. [Google Scholar]
European Commission, Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space. 2024. Mid-term evaluation of the performance of the implementation of the EU space programme and of EUSPA. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2889/520780. https://op.europa.eu/s/zgU3. [Google Scholar]
Gaunt, CT, Coetzee G. 2007. Transformer failures in regions incorrectly considered to have low GIC-risk. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Powertech Conference, July 2007, Lausanne, Switzerland, paper 445, p. 6. https://doi.org/10.1109/PCT.2007.4538419. [Google Scholar]
Gjerloev, JW. 2012. The SuperMAG data processing technique. J Geophys Res 117: A09213. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JA017683. [Google Scholar]
Gombosi, TI, Chen Y, Glocer A, Huang Z, Jia X, et al. 2021. What sustained multi-disciplinary research can achieve: The space weather modeling framework. J Space Weather Space Clim 11: 42. https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2021020. [Google Scholar]
Gordeev, E, Sergeev V, Tsyganenko N, Kuznetsova M, Rastäetter L, Raeder J, Tóth G, Lyon J, Merkin V, Wiltberger M. 2017.The substorm cycle as reproduced by global MHD models. Space Weather 15: 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016SW001495. [Google Scholar]
Grandin, M, Bruus E, Ledvina VE, Partamies N, Barthelemy M, et al. 2024. The Gannon Storm: citizen science observations during the geomagnetic superstorm of 10 May 2024. Geosci Commun 7: 297–316. https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-297-2024. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Grayver, A. 2024. Unravelling the electrical conductivity of earth and planets. Surv Geophys 45: 187–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-023-09813-9. [Google Scholar]
Haiducek, JD, Welling DT, Morley SK, Ganushkina NY, Chu X. 2020. Using multiple signatures to improve accuracy of substorm identification. J Geophys Res Space Phys 125: e2019JA027559. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027559. [Google Scholar]
Hapgood, M 2019. The great storm of May 1921: An exemplar of a dangerous space weather event. Space Weather 17: 950–975. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019SW002195. [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hapgood, M, Angling MJ, Attrill G, Bisi M, Cannon PS, et al. 2021. Development of space weather reasonable worst-case scenarios for the UK national risk assessment. Space Weather 19: e2020SW002593. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002593. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Harang, L. 1941. Maximalwerte der Erdstromspannungen in der Nähe der Nordlichtzone während sehr intensiver erdmagnetischer Störungen [Maximum values of Earth current near the auroral zone during very intensive geomagnetic disturbances, written in German with an English summary]. Gerl Beitr Geophys 57: 310–316. [Google Scholar]
Hayakawa, H, Cliver EW, Clette F, Ebihara Y, Toriumi S, et al. 2023. The extreme space weather event of 1872 February: sunspots, magnetic disturbance, and auroral displays. Astrophys J 959: 23. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acc6 cc. [Google Scholar]
Hodgson, R. 1859. On a curious appearance seen in the Sun. Mon Not R Astron Soc 20: 15–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/20.1.15. [Google Scholar]
Hübert, J, Eaton E, Beggan CD, Montiel-Álvarez AM, Kiyan D, Hogg C. 2025. Developing a new ground electric field model for geomagnetically induced currents in Britain based on long-period magnetotelluric data. Space Weather 23: e2025SW004427. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025SW004427. [Google Scholar]
Juusola, L, Vanhamäki H, Viljanen A, Smirnov M. 2020. Induced currents due to 3D ground conductivity play a major role in the interpretation of geomagnetic variations. Ann Geophys 38: 983–998. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-38-983-2020. [Google Scholar]
Juusola, L, Viljanen A, Dimmock AP, Kellinsalmi M, Schillings A, Weygand JM. 2023. Drivers of rapid geomagnetic variations at high latitudes. Ann Geophys 41: 13–37. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-41-13-2023. [Google Scholar]
Juusola, L, Vanhamäki H, Marshalko E, Kruglyakov M, Viljanen A. 2025. Estimation of the 3-D geoelectric field at the earth’s surface using spherical elementary current systems. Ann Geophys 43: 271–301. https://10.5194/angeo-43-271-2025. [Google Scholar]
Kappenman, JG. 2005. An overview of the impulsive geomagnetic field disturbances and power grid impacts associated with the violent Sun–Earth connection events of 29–31 October 2003 and a comparative evaluation with other contemporary storms. Space Weather 3: S08C01. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004SW000128. [Google Scholar]
Kelbert, A. 2020. The role of global/regional earth conductivity models in natural geomagnetic hazard mitigation. Surv Geophys 41: 115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-019-09579-z. [Google Scholar]
Kelbert, A, Erofeeva S, Trabant C, Karstens R, Van Fossen M. 2018. Taking magnetotelluric data out of the drawer. Eos 99. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EO112859. [Google Scholar]
Kelbert, A, Bedrosian PA, Murphy BS. 2019. The first 3D conductivity model of the contiguous United States: Reflections on geologic structure and application to induction hazards. In: Geomagnetically induced currents from the sun to the power grid, Gannon Z Xu, Swidinski A (eds.), Geophysical monograph 244, chap. 8, pp. 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119434412.ch8. [Google Scholar]
Kevin, K. 2023. National risk assessments of cross-border risks. CSS risk and resilience reports. Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zürich. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000592788. [Google Scholar]
Koch, S, Kuvshinov A. 2013. Global 3-D EM inversion of Sq variations based on simultaneous source and conductivity determination: concept validation and resolution studies. Geophys J Int, 195 (1): 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt227. [Google Scholar]
Korja, T, Engels M, Zhamaletdinov A, Kovtun A, Palshin N, et al. 2002. Crustal conductivity in Fennoscandia – a compilation of a database on crustal conductance in the Fennoscandian Shield. Earth Planets Space 54: 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03353044. [Google Scholar]
Kruglyakov, M, Kuvshinov A. 2018. Using high-order polynomial basis in 3-D EM forward modeling based on volume integral equation method. Geophys J Int 213 (2): 1387–1401. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggy059. [Google Scholar]
Kruglyakov, M, Kuvshinov A, Marshalko E. 2022. Real-time 3-D modeling of the ground electric field due to space weather events. A concept and its validation. Space Weather 20 (4): e2021SW002906. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021SW002906. [Google Scholar]
Kruglyakov, M, Marshalko E, Kuvshinov A, Smirnov M, Viljanen A. 2023. Multi-site transfer function approach for real-time modeling of the ground electric field induced by laterally-nonuniform ionospheric source. Space Weather 21: e2023SW003621. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003621. [Google Scholar]
Kuvshinov, A, Grayver A, Tøffner-Clausen L, Olsen N. 2021. Probing 3-D electrical conductivity of the mantle using 6 years of Swarm, CryoSat-2 and observatory magnetic data and exploiting matrix Q-responses approach. Earth Planets Space 73: 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-020-01341-9. [Google Scholar]
Lazzús, JA, Salfate I. 2024. Report on the effects of the May 2024 Mother’s day geomagnetic storm observed from Chile. J Atmos Sol-Terr Phys 261: 106304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2024.106304. [Google Scholar]
Liu, YD, Luhmann JG, Kajdič P, Kilpua EKJ, Lugaz N, et al. 2014. Observations of an extreme storm in interplanetary space caused by successive coronal mass ejections. Nat Commun 5: 3481. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4481. [Google Scholar]
Love, JJ, Hayakawa H, Cliver EW. 2019. Intensity and impact of the New York Railroad superstorm of May 1921. Space Weather 17: 1281–1292. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019SW002250. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Love, JJ, Lucas GM, Rigler EJ, Murphy BS, Kelbert A, Bedrosian PA. 2022. Mapping a magnetic superstorm: March 1989 geoelectric hazards and impacts on United States power systems. Space Weather 20: e2021SW003030. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021SW003030. [Google Scholar]
Love, JJ, Lucas GM, Kelbert A, Rigler EJ, Bedrosian PA, Schnepf NR. 2025. Mapping a Carrington storm. Geophys Res Lett 52: e2025GL116835. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GL116835. [Google Scholar]
Malone-Leigh, J, Campanyà J, Gallagher PT, Hodgson J, Hogg C. 2024. Mapping geoelectric field hazards in Ireland. Space Weather 22: e2023SW003638. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003638. [Google Scholar]
Love, JJ, Mursula K. 2024. Challenging ring-current models of the Carrington storm. J Geophys Res Space Phys 129: e2024JA032541. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JA032541. [Google Scholar]
Love, JJ, Rigler EJ, Hartinger MD, Lucas GM, Kelbert A, Bedrosian PA. 2023. The March 1940 superstorm: Geoelectromagnetic hazards and impacts on American communication and power systems. Space Weather 21: e2022SW003379. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003379. [Google Scholar]
Love, J, Rigler EJ, Hayakawa H, Mursula K. 2024. On the uncertain intensity estimate of the 1859 Carrington storm. J Space Weather Space Clim 14: 21. https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2024015. [Google Scholar]
Lucas, G, Love JJ, Kelbert A, Bedrosian PA, Rigler EJ. 2020. A 100-year geoelectric hazard analysis for the U.S. high-voltage power grid. Space Weather 18: e2019SW002329. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019SW002329. [Google Scholar]
Mac Manus, DH, Rodger CJ, Dalzell M, Renton A, Richardson GS, Petersen T, Clilverd MA. 2022. Geomagnetically induced current modeling in New Zealand: extreme storm analysis using multiple disturbance scenarios and industry provided hazard magnitudes. Space Weather 20: e2022SW003320. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003320. [Google Scholar]
Mac Manus, DH, Rodger CJ, Renton A, Ronald J, Harper D, Taylor C, Dalzell M, Divett T, Clilverd MA. 2023. Geomagnetically induced current mitigation in New Zealand: Operational mitigation method development with industry input. Space Weather 21: e2023SW003533. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003533. [Google Scholar]
Mac Manus, DH, Rodger CJ, Renton A, Lo V, Malone-Leigh J, Petersen T, Copland M, Hendry AT, Clilverd MA, Richardson GS. 2025. Implementing geomagnetically induced currents mitigation during the May 2024 “Gannon” G5 storm: Research informed response by the New Zealand power network. Space Weather 23: e2025SW004388. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025SW004388. [Google Scholar]
Marshalko, E, Kruglyakov M, Kuvshinov A, Juusola L, Kwagala NK, Sokolova E, Pilipenko V. 2021. Comparing three approaches to the inducing source setting for the ground electromagnetic field modeling due to space weather events. Space Weather 19: e2020SW002657. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002657. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Marshalko, E, Kruglyakov M, Kuvshinov A, Viljanen A. 2023. Three-dimensional modeling of the ground electric field in Fennoscandia during the Halloween geomagnetic storm. Space Weather 21: e2022SW003370. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003370. [Google Scholar]
Ministry of the Interior. 2023. National risk assessment 2023. Publi Min Inter, p. 6. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-324-602-7. [Google Scholar]
Molinski, TS. 2002. Why utilities respect geomagnetically induced currents. J Atmos Sol-Terr Phys 64: 1765–1778. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(02)00126-8. [Google Scholar]
Newell, PT, Gjerloev JW. 2011. Evaluation of SuperMAG auroral electrojet indices as indicators of substorms and auroral power. J Geophys Res 116: A12211. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JA016779. [Google Scholar]
Ngwira, CM, Pulkkinen A, Mays LM, Kuznetsova MM, Galvin AB, Simunac K, Baker DN, Li X, Zheng Y, Glocer A. 2013. Simulation of the 23 July 2012 extreme space weather event: What if this extremely rare CME was Earth directed? Space Weather 11: 671–679. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013SW000990. [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ngwira, CM, Pulkkinen A, Wilder FD, Crowley G. 2013. Extended study of extreme geoelectric field event scenarios for geomagnetically induced current applications. Space Weather 11: 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/swe.20021. [Google Scholar]
Ngwira, CM, Pulkkinen A, Kuznetsova MM, Glocer A. 2014. Modeling extreme “Carrington-type” space weather events using three-dimensional global MHD simulations. J Geophys Res Space Phys 119: 4456–4474. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JA019661. [Google Scholar]
Ohtani, S. 2022. New insights from the 2003 Halloween storm into the Colaba 1, 600 nT magnetic depression during the 1859 Carrington storm. J Geophys Res Space Phys 127: e2022JA030596. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030596. [Google Scholar]
Ohtani, S, Odagi Y, Matsuoka A, Iyemori T. 2024. Dayside magnetic depression following interplanetary shock arrivals during the February 1958 and July 1959 superstorms. Space Weather 22: e2024SW004017. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024SW004017. [Google Scholar]
Oughton, EJ, Hapgood M, Richardson GS, Beggan CD, Thomson AWP, Gibbs M, Burnett C, Gaunt CT, Trichas M, Dada R, Horne RB. 2018. A risk assessment framework for the socioeconomic impacts of electricity transmission infrastructure failure due to space weather: An application to the United Kingdom. Risk Anal 39: 1022–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13229. [Google Scholar]
Oyedokun, D, Jankee P. 2023. Power system harmonic analysis with real geomagnetically induced current from the 2003 halloween storm. Sci Afr 22: e01951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01951. [Google Scholar]
Palmroth, M, Ganse U, Pfau-Kempf Y, Battarbee M, Turc L, Brito T, Grandin M, Hoilijoki S, Sandroos A, von Alfthan S. 2018. Vlasov methods in space physics and astrophysics. Liv Rev Comput Astrophys 4: 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41115-018-0003-2. [Google Scholar]
Pankratov, O, Kuvshinov A. 2016. Applied mathematics in EM studies with special emphasis on an uncertainty quantification and 3-D integral equation modelling. Surv Geophys 1: 109–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-015-9340-4. [Google Scholar]
Pilipenko, V, Kozyreva O, Hartinger M, Rastaetter L, Sakharov YA. 2023. Is the global MHD modeling of the magnetosphere adequate for GIC prediction: the May 27–28, 2017 storm. Cosmic Res 61: 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0010952522600044. [Google Scholar]
Powell, KG, Roe PL, Linde TJ, Gombosi TI, De Zeeuw DL. 1999. A solution-adaptive upwind scheme for ideal magnetohydrodynamics. J Comput Phys 154: 284–309. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1999.6299. [Google Scholar]
Pulkkinen, A, Lindahl S, Viljanen A, Pirjola R. 2005. October 29–31, 2003 geomagnetic storm: geomagnetically induced currents and their relation to problems in the Swedish high-voltage power transmission system. Space Weather 3: S08C03. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004SW000123. [Google Scholar]
Pulkkinen, A, Pirjola R, Viljanen A. 2008. Statistics of extreme geomagnetically induced current events. Space Weather 6: S07001. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008SW000388. [Google Scholar]
Pulkkinen, A, Bernabeu E, Thomson A, Viljanen A, Pirjola R, et al. 2017. Geomagnetically induced currents: Science, engineering and applications readiness. Space Weather 15: 828–856. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016SW001501. [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Rastätter, L, Toth G, Kuznetsova MM, and Pulkkinen AA. 2014. CalcDeltaB: An efficient post processing tool to calculate ground-level magnetic perturbations from global magnetosphere simulations. Space Weather 12: 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014SW001083. [Google Scholar]
Riley, P, Love JJ. 2017. Extreme geomagnetic storms: Probabilistic forecasts and their uncertainties. Space Weather 15: 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016SW001470. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Rodríguez-Zuluaga, J, Gjerloev J, Ohtani S, Zou Y, Anderson B. 2024. Quantifying extreme values in geomagnetic perturbations using ground magnetic records. Space Weather 22: e2024SW003991. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024SW003991. [Google Scholar]
Rogers, NC, Wild JA, Eastoe EF, Gjerloev JW, Thomson AWP. 2020. A global climatological model of extreme geomagnetic field fluctuations. J Space Weather Space Clim 10: 5. https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2020008. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Rosenqvist, L, Fristedt T, Dimmock AP, Davidsson P, Fridström R, Hall JO, Hesslow L, Kjäll J, Smirnov MYU, Welling D, Wintoft P. 2022. 3D Modeling of geomagnetically induced currents in Sweden – validation and extreme event analysis. Space Weather 20: e2021SW002988. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021SW002988. [Google Scholar]
Rosenqvist, L, Johlander A, Molenkamp S, Dimmock AP, Setréus J, Lanabere V. 2025. A novel approach for evaluating GIC impacts in the Swedish power grid. Space Weather 23: e2024SW004313. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024SW004313. [Google Scholar]
Schachinger, P, Albert D, Renner H. 2023. Reduction of geomagnetically induced current impacts by optimized neutral point connections. IET Gener Transm Distrib 17: 3984–3992. https://doi.org/10.1049/gtd2.12957. [Google Scholar]
Schrijver, CJ, Kauristie K, Aylward AD, Denardini CM, Gibson SE, et al. 2015. Understanding space weather to shield society: A global road map for 2015–2025 commissioned by COSPAR and ILWS. Adv Space Res 55: 2745–2807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2015.03.023. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Shepherd, SG. 2014. Altitude-adjusted corrected geomagnetic coordinates: Definition and functional approximations. J Geophys Res Space Phys 119: 7501–7521. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020264. [Google Scholar]
Sornette, D, Ouillon G. 2012. Dragon-kings: Mechanisms, statistical methods and empirical evidence. Eur Phys J Spl Top 205 (1): 1–26. https://doi:10.1140/epjst/e2012-01559-5. [Google Scholar]
Thomas, D, Weigel RS, Pulkkinen A, Schuck PW, Welling DT, Ngwira CM. 2024. What drove the Carrington event? An analysis of currents and geospace regions. J Geophys Res Space Phys 129: e2024JA032556. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JA032556. [Google Scholar]
Thomson, A, Dawson E, Reay S. 2011. Quantifying extreme behaviour in geomagnetic activity. Space Weather 9: S10001. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011SW000696. [Google Scholar]
Trichtchenko, L. 2021. Frequency considerations in GIC applications. Space Weather 19: e2020SW002694. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002694. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Tsurutani, BT, Lakhina GS, Hajra R. 2023. Comments on “New insights from the 2003 Halloween storm into the Colaba 1600 nT magnetic depression during the 1859 Carrington storm” by S. Ohtani (2022). J Geophys Res Space Phys 128: e2022JA031034. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA031034. [Google Scholar]
Usoskin, I, Miyake F, Baroni M, Brehm N, Dalla S, et al. 2023. Extreme solar events: setting up a paradigm. Space Sci Rev 219: 73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-023-01018-1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Vanhamäki, H, Juusola L. 2020. Introduction to spherical elementary current systems. In: Ionospheric multi-spacecraft analysis tools: Approaches for deriving ionospheric parameters, Dunlop MW, Lühr H (Eds.), Springer International Publishing, pp. 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26732-2_2. [Google Scholar]
Viljanen, A, Pirjola R, Prácser E, Katkalov J, Wik M. 2014. Geomagnetically induced currents in Europe. Modelled occurrence in a continent-wide power grid. J Space Weather Space Clim 4: A09. https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2014006. [Google Scholar]
Viljanen, A, Kauristie K, Laitinen T, Osmane A, Palmroth M, Rintamäki E, Savola M, Siirtola R, Suni J, Turc L. 2022. Äärimmäiset avaruussäämyrskyt, niiden vaikutukset ja varautuminen (in Finnish) (Extreme space weather storms, their impacts, and precautionary measures). In: Ilmatieteen laitos – Finnish Meteorological Institute, Raportteja – Rapporter – Reports 2022, p. 2. ISBN 978-952-336-163-8. [Google Scholar]
Welling, DT, Love JJ, Rigler EJ, Oliveira DM, Komar CM, Morley SK. 2021. Numerical simulations of the geospace response to the arrival of an idealized perfect interplanetary coronal mass ejection. Space Weather 18: e2020SW002489. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002489. [Google Scholar]
Wik, M, Pirjola R, Lundstedt H, Viljanen A, Wintoft P, Pulkkinen A. 2009. Space weather events in July 1982 and October 2003 and the effects of geomagnetically induced currents on Swedish technical systems. Ann Geophys 27: 1775–1787. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-27-1775-2009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zhang, T, Ebihara Y, Tanaka T. 2023. Nighttime geomagnetic response to jumps of solar wind dynamic pressure: A possible cause of Québec blackout in March 1989. Space Weather 21: e2023SW003493. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003493. [Google Scholar]

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.