Simple Binary Prediction of Daily Storm-Level Geomagnetic Activity with Solar Winds and Potential Relevance for Cerebral Function

• Autorzy: Caswell J. M. , Rouleau N.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

A number of previous studies have examined various statistical methods for the prediction of geomagnetic activity, particularly based on predictor input of solar wind variables. However, investigation of the potential for a simple binary prediction system based on either “quiet” or storm-level activity of the planetary magnetic field has been severely lacking. The goals of the current analyses were to identify potential space weather models for the accurate prediction of geomagnetic storm events. Furthermore, while the deleterious or negative effects of increases in geomagnetic activity on a range of terrestrial systems have been focused on in the past, theoretical perspectives on the potential benefits of significantly increased geomagnetic perturbations are considered.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Geomagnetic field; solar winds; interplanetary magnetic field; prediction; logistic regression; artificial neural network; space Feather

• Wydawca: Przedsiębiorstwo Wydawnictw Naukowych "DARWIN"
• Czasopismo: International Letters of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: Vol. 17, iss. 1
• Strony: 107--113
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 20 poz., tab., wykr., wz.

Twórcy

autor

Caswell J. M.

• Transnational Anomalies Research, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 3W6, Canada

autor

Rouleau N.

• Transnational Anomalies Research, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 3W6, Canada

Bibliografia

• [1] D. H. Boteler, R. J. Pirjola, H. Nevanlinna, Advances in Space Research 22 (1998) 17-27.
• [2] I. G. Usoskin, M. Korte, G. A. Kovaltsov, Geophysical Research Letters 35 (2008).
• [3] E. S. Babayev, A. A. Allahverdiyeva, Advances in Space Research 40 (2007) 1941-1951.
• [4] K. S. Saroka, J. M. Caswell, A. Lapointe, M. A. Persinger, Neuroscience Letters 560 (2014) 126-130.
• [5] J. M. Caswell, Journal of Signal and Information Processing 5 (2014) 42-53.
• [6] H. Lundstedt, H. Gleisner, P. Wintoft, Geophysical Research Letters 29 (2002) 34.1-34.4.
• [7] N. Srivastava, Annales Geophysicae 23 (2005) 2969-2974.
• [8] J. Zhang, I. G. Richardson, D. F. Webb, N. Gopalswamy, E. Huttunen, J. C. Kasper, N. V., Nitta, W. Poomvises, B. J. Thompson, C. C. Wu, S. Yashiro, A. N. Zhukov, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 112 (2007).
• [9] R. J. Boynton, M. A. Balikhin, S. A. Billings, O. A. Amariutei, Annales Geophysicae 31 (2013) 673-679.
• [10] M. A. Persinger, International Journal of Physical Sciences 4 (2009) 44-46.
• [11] B. Kirov, V. N. Obridko, K. Georgieva, E. V. Nepomnyashtaya, B. D. Shelting, Geomagnetism and Astronomy 53 (2013) 813-817.
• [12] F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A. G. Lang, A. Buchner, Behavior Research Methods 39 (2007) 175 191.
• [13] F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A. Buchner, A. G., Lang, Behavior Research Methods 41 (2009) 1149-1160.
• [14] N. J. D. Nagelkerke, Biometrika 78 (1991) 691-692.
• [15] B. P. Mulligan, M. A. Persinger, Neuroscience Letters 516 (2012) 54-56.
• [16] J. W. Sari, N. F. Ness, Solar Physics 8 (1969) 155-165.
• [17] W. H. Matthaeus, M. L. Goldstein, Physical Review Letters 57 (1986) 495-498.
• [18] L. C. Tu, J. Luo, G. T. Gillies, Reports on Progress in Physics 68 (2005) 77-130.
• [19] D.H., Fairfield, Journal of Geophysical Research 74 (1969), 3541-3553.
• [20] B. T. Dotta, C. A. Buckner, R. M. Lafrenie, M. A. Persinger, Brain Research (2011) 77-88