The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An empirical relationship between interplanetary conditions and Dst
Abstract
An algorithm is presented for predicting the ground-based Dst index solely from a knowledge of the velocity and density of the solar wind and the north-south solar magnetospheric component of the interplanetary magnetic field. The three key elements of this model are an adjustment for solar wind dynamic pressure, an injection rate linearly proportional to the dawn-to-dusk component of the interplanetary electric field which is zero for electric fields below 0.5 mV m−1, and an exponential decay rate of the ring current with an e folding time of 7.7 hours. The algorithm is used to predict the Dst signature of seven geomagnetic storm intervals in 1967 and 1968. In addition to being quite successful, considering the simplicity of the model, the algorithm pinpoints the causes of various types of storm behavior. A main phase is initiated whenever the dawn-to-dusk solar magnetospheric component of the interplanetary electric field becomes large and positive. It is preceded by an initial phase of increased Dst if the solar wind dynamic pressure increases suddenly prior to the main phase. The recovery phase is initiated when the injection rate governed by the interplanetary electric field drops below the ring current decay rate associated with the ring current strength built up during the main phase. Variable recovery rates are generally due to additional injection during the recovery phase. This one algorithm accounts for magnetospheric behavior at quiet and at disturbed times and seems capable of predicting the behavior of Dst during even the largest of storms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Semiannual variation of geomagnetic activity
Russell, C. T., & McPherron, R. L. (1973) · Journal of Geophysical Research · doi:10.1029/ja078i001p00092 · Cited by 1,016
Self-citationA general relation between the energy of trapped particles and the disturbance field near the Earth
Sckopke, N. (1966) · Journal of Geophysical Research · doi:10.1029/jz071i013p03125 · Cited by 560
Interplanetary field and geomagnetic variations—a unifield view
Hirshberg, J., & Colburn, D. S. (1969) · Planetary and Space Science · doi:10.1016/0032-0633(69)90010-5 · Cited by 212
Cited by
Newell, P. T., Sotirelis, T., Liou, K., Meng, C. ‐., & Rich, F. J. (2007) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics · doi:10.1029/2006ja012015 · Cited by 707
Current understanding of magnetic storms: Storm‐substorm relationships
Kamide, Y., Baumjohann, W., Daglis, I. A., Gonzalez, W. D., Grande, M., Joselyn, J. A., McPherron, R. L., Phillips, J. L., Reeves, E. G. D., Rostoker, G., et al. (1998) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics · doi:10.1029/98ja01426 · Cited by 381
Self-citationObservations of an extreme storm in interplanetary space caused by successive coronal mass ejections
Liu, Y. D., Luhmann, J. G., Kajdič, P., Kilpua, E. K. J., Lugaz, N., Nitta, N. V., Möstl, C., Lavraud, B., Bale, S. D., Farrugia, C. J., et al. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms4481 · Cited by 293
Coronal mass ejections, interplanetary ejecta and geomagnetic storms
Cane, H. V., Richardson, I. G., & St. Cyr, O. C. (2000) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2000gl000111 · Cited by 212
Metadata
- Authors
- Burton, R. K., McPherron, R. L., & Russell, C. T.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1975-11-01
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 31
- Pages
- 4204-4214
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1970488982
- Cited by
- 1,444
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An empirical relationship between interplanetary conditions and Dst. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/ja080i031p04204
- The paper
- Burton, R. K., McPherron, R. L., & Russell, C. T. (1975). An empirical relationship between interplanetary conditions and Dst. Journal of Geophysical Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/ja080i031p04204
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.