Geospace environment modeling 2008-2009 challenge: Dst index

This paper reports the metrics‐based results of the Dst index part of the 2008–2009 GEM Metrics Challenge. The 2008–2009 GEM Metrics Challenge asked modelers to submit results for four geomagnetic storm events and five different types of observations that can be modeled by statistical, climatologica...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Space Weather 2013-04, Vol.11 (4), p.187-205
Hauptverfasser: Rastätter, L., Kuznetsova, M. M., Glocer, A., Welling, D., Meng, X., Raeder, J., Wiltberger, M., Jordanova, V. K., Yu, Y., Zaharia, S., Weigel, R. S., Sazykin, S., Boynton, R., Wei, H., Eccles, V., Horton, W., Mays, M. L., Gannon, J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 205
container_issue 4
container_start_page 187
container_title Space Weather
container_volume 11
creator Rastätter, L.
Kuznetsova, M. M.
Glocer, A.
Welling, D.
Meng, X.
Raeder, J.
Wiltberger, M.
Jordanova, V. K.
Yu, Y.
Zaharia, S.
Weigel, R. S.
Sazykin, S.
Boynton, R.
Wei, H.
Eccles, V.
Horton, W.
Mays, M. L.
Gannon, J.
description This paper reports the metrics‐based results of the Dst index part of the 2008–2009 GEM Metrics Challenge. The 2008–2009 GEM Metrics Challenge asked modelers to submit results for four geomagnetic storm events and five different types of observations that can be modeled by statistical, climatological or physics‐based models of the magnetosphere‐ionosphere system. We present the results of 30 model settings that were run at the Community Coordinated Modeling Center and at the institutions of various modelers for these events. To measure the performance of each of the models against the observations, we use comparisons of 1 hour averaged model data with the Dst index issued by the World Data Center for Geomagnetism, Kyoto, Japan, and direct comparison of 1 minute model data with the 1 minute Dst index calculated by the United States Geological Survey. The latter index can be used to calculate spectral variability of model outputs in comparison to the index. We find that model rankings vary widely by skill score used. None of the models consistently perform best for all events. We find that empirical models perform well in general. Magnetohydrodynamics‐based models of the global magnetosphere with inner magnetosphere physics (ring current model) included and stand‐alone ring current models with properly defined boundary conditions perform well and are able to match or surpass results from empirical models. Unlike in similar studies, the statistical models used in this study found their challenge in the weakest events rather than the strongest events. Key Points A large set of models that specify DST have been evaluated Five skill scores were used to evaluate models Statistical models perform best but physics-based models can compete
doi_str_mv 10.1002/swe.20036
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_wiley</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1638487370</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3532279091</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-i2776-c55aa786cccf31bd68b9538f0937b81408e547ac4fd83cb7c9ec45aa1c6e5ec83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkFFPwjAUhRujiYg--A-W-Dxo13btjC8GEQ2IiaI8Nl13h8WxwToE_r0VjPHlnvNwvnOTg9AlwR2CcdR1G-hEGNP4CLUIZ1EoaIKP__lTdObc3EcZj1gL3QygckttIIDyy9ZVuYCyCRZVBoUtZ4GvkqE_SWA-dFFAOYPr4M41gS0z2J6jk1wXDi5-tY3e7vuT3kM4eh489m5HoY2EiEPDudZCxsaYnJI0i2WacCpznFCRSsKwBM6ENizPJDWpMAkY5hFiYuBgJG2jq0Pvsq5Wa3CNmlfruvQvFYmpZFJQgX2qe0htbAE7taztQtc7RbD6WUb5ZdR-GfU67e-NJ8IDYV0D2z9C158q9pVcTccD9T4cvwyfJj3F6De0U2Wf</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1638487370</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Geospace environment modeling 2008-2009 challenge: Dst index</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Rastätter, L. ; Kuznetsova, M. M. ; Glocer, A. ; Welling, D. ; Meng, X. ; Raeder, J. ; Wiltberger, M. ; Jordanova, V. K. ; Yu, Y. ; Zaharia, S. ; Weigel, R. S. ; Sazykin, S. ; Boynton, R. ; Wei, H. ; Eccles, V. ; Horton, W. ; Mays, M. L. ; Gannon, J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rastätter, L. ; Kuznetsova, M. M. ; Glocer, A. ; Welling, D. ; Meng, X. ; Raeder, J. ; Wiltberger, M. ; Jordanova, V. K. ; Yu, Y. ; Zaharia, S. ; Weigel, R. S. ; Sazykin, S. ; Boynton, R. ; Wei, H. ; Eccles, V. ; Horton, W. ; Mays, M. L. ; Gannon, J.</creatorcontrib><description>This paper reports the metrics‐based results of the Dst index part of the 2008–2009 GEM Metrics Challenge. The 2008–2009 GEM Metrics Challenge asked modelers to submit results for four geomagnetic storm events and five different types of observations that can be modeled by statistical, climatological or physics‐based models of the magnetosphere‐ionosphere system. We present the results of 30 model settings that were run at the Community Coordinated Modeling Center and at the institutions of various modelers for these events. To measure the performance of each of the models against the observations, we use comparisons of 1 hour averaged model data with the Dst index issued by the World Data Center for Geomagnetism, Kyoto, Japan, and direct comparison of 1 minute model data with the 1 minute Dst index calculated by the United States Geological Survey. The latter index can be used to calculate spectral variability of model outputs in comparison to the index. We find that model rankings vary widely by skill score used. None of the models consistently perform best for all events. We find that empirical models perform well in general. Magnetohydrodynamics‐based models of the global magnetosphere with inner magnetosphere physics (ring current model) included and stand‐alone ring current models with properly defined boundary conditions perform well and are able to match or surpass results from empirical models. Unlike in similar studies, the statistical models used in this study found their challenge in the weakest events rather than the strongest events. Key Points A large set of models that specify DST have been evaluated Five skill scores were used to evaluate models Statistical models perform best but physics-based models can compete</description><identifier>ISSN: 1542-7390</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1539-4964</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1542-7390</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/swe.20036</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>GEM 2008 challenge ; model validation ; Physics</subject><ispartof>Space Weather, 2013-04, Vol.11 (4), p.187-205</ispartof><rights>2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fswe.20036$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fswe.20036$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rastätter, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuznetsova, M. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glocer, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Welling, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meng, X.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raeder, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiltberger, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jordanova, V. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaharia, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weigel, R. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sazykin, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boynton, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wei, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eccles, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horton, W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mays, M. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gannon, J.</creatorcontrib><title>Geospace environment modeling 2008-2009 challenge: Dst index</title><title>Space Weather</title><addtitle>Space Weather</addtitle><description>This paper reports the metrics‐based results of the Dst index part of the 2008–2009 GEM Metrics Challenge. The 2008–2009 GEM Metrics Challenge asked modelers to submit results for four geomagnetic storm events and five different types of observations that can be modeled by statistical, climatological or physics‐based models of the magnetosphere‐ionosphere system. We present the results of 30 model settings that were run at the Community Coordinated Modeling Center and at the institutions of various modelers for these events. To measure the performance of each of the models against the observations, we use comparisons of 1 hour averaged model data with the Dst index issued by the World Data Center for Geomagnetism, Kyoto, Japan, and direct comparison of 1 minute model data with the 1 minute Dst index calculated by the United States Geological Survey. The latter index can be used to calculate spectral variability of model outputs in comparison to the index. We find that model rankings vary widely by skill score used. None of the models consistently perform best for all events. We find that empirical models perform well in general. Magnetohydrodynamics‐based models of the global magnetosphere with inner magnetosphere physics (ring current model) included and stand‐alone ring current models with properly defined boundary conditions perform well and are able to match or surpass results from empirical models. Unlike in similar studies, the statistical models used in this study found their challenge in the weakest events rather than the strongest events. Key Points A large set of models that specify DST have been evaluated Five skill scores were used to evaluate models Statistical models perform best but physics-based models can compete</description><subject>GEM 2008 challenge</subject><subject>model validation</subject><subject>Physics</subject><issn>1542-7390</issn><issn>1539-4964</issn><issn>1542-7390</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNkFFPwjAUhRujiYg--A-W-Dxo13btjC8GEQ2IiaI8Nl13h8WxwToE_r0VjPHlnvNwvnOTg9AlwR2CcdR1G-hEGNP4CLUIZ1EoaIKP__lTdObc3EcZj1gL3QygckttIIDyy9ZVuYCyCRZVBoUtZ4GvkqE_SWA-dFFAOYPr4M41gS0z2J6jk1wXDi5-tY3e7vuT3kM4eh489m5HoY2EiEPDudZCxsaYnJI0i2WacCpznFCRSsKwBM6ENizPJDWpMAkY5hFiYuBgJG2jq0Pvsq5Wa3CNmlfruvQvFYmpZFJQgX2qe0htbAE7taztQtc7RbD6WUb5ZdR-GfU67e-NJ8IDYV0D2z9C158q9pVcTccD9T4cvwyfJj3F6De0U2Wf</recordid><startdate>201304</startdate><enddate>201304</enddate><creator>Rastätter, L.</creator><creator>Kuznetsova, M. M.</creator><creator>Glocer, A.</creator><creator>Welling, D.</creator><creator>Meng, X.</creator><creator>Raeder, J.</creator><creator>Wiltberger, M.</creator><creator>Jordanova, V. K.</creator><creator>Yu, Y.</creator><creator>Zaharia, S.</creator><creator>Weigel, R. S.</creator><creator>Sazykin, S.</creator><creator>Boynton, R.</creator><creator>Wei, H.</creator><creator>Eccles, V.</creator><creator>Horton, W.</creator><creator>Mays, M. L.</creator><creator>Gannon, J.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L7M</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201304</creationdate><title>Geospace environment modeling 2008-2009 challenge: Dst index</title><author>Rastätter, L. ; Kuznetsova, M. M. ; Glocer, A. ; Welling, D. ; Meng, X. ; Raeder, J. ; Wiltberger, M. ; Jordanova, V. K. ; Yu, Y. ; Zaharia, S. ; Weigel, R. S. ; Sazykin, S. ; Boynton, R. ; Wei, H. ; Eccles, V. ; Horton, W. ; Mays, M. L. ; Gannon, J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-i2776-c55aa786cccf31bd68b9538f0937b81408e547ac4fd83cb7c9ec45aa1c6e5ec83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>GEM 2008 challenge</topic><topic>model validation</topic><topic>Physics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rastätter, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuznetsova, M. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glocer, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Welling, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meng, X.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raeder, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiltberger, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jordanova, V. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaharia, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weigel, R. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sazykin, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boynton, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wei, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eccles, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horton, W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mays, M. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gannon, J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Space Weather</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rastätter, L.</au><au>Kuznetsova, M. M.</au><au>Glocer, A.</au><au>Welling, D.</au><au>Meng, X.</au><au>Raeder, J.</au><au>Wiltberger, M.</au><au>Jordanova, V. K.</au><au>Yu, Y.</au><au>Zaharia, S.</au><au>Weigel, R. S.</au><au>Sazykin, S.</au><au>Boynton, R.</au><au>Wei, H.</au><au>Eccles, V.</au><au>Horton, W.</au><au>Mays, M. L.</au><au>Gannon, J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Geospace environment modeling 2008-2009 challenge: Dst index</atitle><jtitle>Space Weather</jtitle><addtitle>Space Weather</addtitle><date>2013-04</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>187</spage><epage>205</epage><pages>187-205</pages><issn>1542-7390</issn><issn>1539-4964</issn><eissn>1542-7390</eissn><abstract>This paper reports the metrics‐based results of the Dst index part of the 2008–2009 GEM Metrics Challenge. The 2008–2009 GEM Metrics Challenge asked modelers to submit results for four geomagnetic storm events and five different types of observations that can be modeled by statistical, climatological or physics‐based models of the magnetosphere‐ionosphere system. We present the results of 30 model settings that were run at the Community Coordinated Modeling Center and at the institutions of various modelers for these events. To measure the performance of each of the models against the observations, we use comparisons of 1 hour averaged model data with the Dst index issued by the World Data Center for Geomagnetism, Kyoto, Japan, and direct comparison of 1 minute model data with the 1 minute Dst index calculated by the United States Geological Survey. The latter index can be used to calculate spectral variability of model outputs in comparison to the index. We find that model rankings vary widely by skill score used. None of the models consistently perform best for all events. We find that empirical models perform well in general. Magnetohydrodynamics‐based models of the global magnetosphere with inner magnetosphere physics (ring current model) included and stand‐alone ring current models with properly defined boundary conditions perform well and are able to match or surpass results from empirical models. Unlike in similar studies, the statistical models used in this study found their challenge in the weakest events rather than the strongest events. Key Points A large set of models that specify DST have been evaluated Five skill scores were used to evaluate models Statistical models perform best but physics-based models can compete</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/swe.20036</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1542-7390
ispartof Space Weather, 2013-04, Vol.11 (4), p.187-205
issn 1542-7390
1539-4964
1542-7390
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1638487370
source Access via Wiley Online Library; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects GEM 2008 challenge
model validation
Physics
title Geospace environment modeling 2008-2009 challenge: Dst index
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T01%3A39%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_wiley&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Geospace%20environment%20modeling%202008-2009%20challenge:%20Dst%20index&rft.jtitle=Space%20Weather&rft.au=Rast%C3%A4tter,%20L.&rft.date=2013-04&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=187&rft.epage=205&rft.pages=187-205&rft.issn=1542-7390&rft.eissn=1542-7390&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/swe.20036&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_wiley%3E3532279091%3C/proquest_wiley%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1638487370&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true