Are Supersubstorms Substorms? Extreme Nightside Auroral Electrojet Activities During the May 2024 Geomagnetic Storm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Enhancement of currents in Earth's ionosphere adversely impacts systems and technologies, and one example of extreme enhancement is supersubstorms. Despite the name, whether a supersubstorm is a substorm remains an open question, because studies suggest that unlike substorms, supersubstorms sometimes affect all local times including the dayside. The spectacular May 2024 storm contains signatures of two supersubstorms that occurred successively in time with similar magnitude and duration, and we explore the nature of them by examining the morphology of the auroral electrojet, the corresponding disturbances in the magnetosphere, and the solar wind driving conditions. The results show that the two events exhibit distinctly different features. The first event was characterized by a locally intensified electrojet followed by a rapid expansion in latitude and local time. Auroral observations showed poleward expansion of auroras (or aurorae), and geosynchronous observations showed thickening of the plasma sheet, magnetic field dipolarization, and energetic particle injections. The second event was characterized by an instantaneous intensification of the electrojet over broad latitude and local time. Auroras did not expand but brightened simultaneously across the sky. Radar and LEO observations showed enhancement of the ionospheric electric field. Therefore, the first event is a substorm, whereas the second event is enhancement of general magnetospheric convection driven by a solar wind pressure increase. These results illustrate that the so‐called supersubstorms have more than one type of driver, and that internal instability in the magnetotail and external driving of the solar wind are equally important in driving extreme auroral electrojet activity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".