← the field guide · the live sky

STORM LAB

Every gauge on this desk runs published physics — the same families of equations forecasters and modelers use. You control the solar wind: how fast it blows, how much plasma it carries, how strong its magnetic field is, and — the part that decides everything — which way that field points. Earth answers. First run is guided; after that, the desk is yours.

copied — send someone your storm
side view · sun off-left · dotted ring = geosync orbit (6.6 R⊕) · field lines schematic, nose pinned to the model
Kp estimate
planetary activity, from the polar-cap potential
Polar-cap voltage
kV
the aurora engine's EMF
IMF clock · the door
shut
clock 0°
Magnetopause nose
R⊕
wind pressure nPa
Merging rate
Newell coupling — how fast the door swallows field lines
Storm size, if held
nT
ring current at equilibrium
quiet ~400 · coronal-hole stream 500–800 · big CME 1000+
quiet ~5 · CME sheath 20–60
quiet ~5 · magnetic cloud 20–40 · May 2024 touched ~70
the gatekeeper — south (negative) opens the door · limited to ±|B|

Who sees it tonight?

magnetic latitudes, not map latitudes — overhead aurora plausible low on the poleward horizon unlikely
Beyond the scale: a ring current this deep means a superstorm, and superstorms outrun every Kp-based map. On May 10 2024 naked-eye aurora was reported from 24.3° magnetic latitude10; in 1859 the red glow reached the Caribbean. The lowest rows of this ladder stop being safe.

What you are looking at

The picture is a side view of near-Earth space: the sun is off-screen to the left, the dotted ring is geosynchronous orbit at 6.6 Earth radii — where the big communications satellites live — and the blue curve is the magnetopause, the boundary where Earth's magnetic field stops the solar wind. Its shape is the Shue et al. (1998) model3, recomputed live from your dials. Squeeze the wind hard enough and the nose of the shield gets pushed inside the satellite ring — it really happens; the model you are driving was built from an event that did exactly that in January 19973, and May 2024 did it again.

The thin blue curves are magnetic field lines — schematic, but pinned to the physics: the outermost closed dayside line noses in exactly at the Shue standoff, and the footprints of the open lines track the modeled oval. Turn Bz south and watch them work: dayside lines peel open at the reconnection ✕ and sweep back over the poles into the tail — Dungey's circuit, drawn in 19618 — while a bright trickle of particles funnels in along them and sparks the nightside oval. Then hold a storm and watch the tail itself: it stretches as it stores energy, snaps earthward, and the oval erupts — a substorm, the loading–unloading cycle Akasofu mapped in 196412, run here about 200× faster than nature so you can see whole cycles. The small disc at lower right is the same auroral oval seen from above the pole — the observatory's home view, in miniature: it slides equatorward, thickens, reddens at its outer edge, and bulges at midnight when the tail lets go.

The gauges are the desk instruments. Polar-cap voltage is the electrical potential the solar wind drives across Earth's polar ionosphere — the EMF of the aurora engine, from the Boyle et al. (1997) empirical formula1, soft-capped near ~250 kV where real storms saturate6,7. The Kp estimate inverts the same paper's climatology (Φ ≈ 16.5 + 15.5·Kp)1. The merging rate is the Newell et al. (2007) coupling function2 — the best single predictor of how strongly the magnetosphere is being driven. Storm size asks the O'Brien & McPherron (2000) ring-current model4 a simple question: if this exact wind blew steadily for a few hours, where would the ring current settle? And the city ladder places the auroral oval's midnight equatorward edge with the Carbary (2005) Kp fit5.

Why "north or south" decides everything: Earth's field points north at the nose of the magnetosphere. A southward interplanetary field is anti-parallel to it — the geometry lets the two fields merge and reconnect, the circuit Dungey drew in 19618. Northward field, no merging, no storm — no matter how fast the wind.

The colors are a ladder

Color is the sky telling you the electron energy. Slow electrons (under ~1 keV) stop above 200 km, where the air is thin enough for oxygen's forbidden 630 nm transition to survive its 110-second wait — pure red, and only ever at the top. The 1–10 keV workhorses stop at 100–150 km and light oxygen green — most of the light in most displays. The hardest electrons (>10 keV) punch below 100 km into molecular nitrogen: a pink-magenta fringe on the bottom edge of violent curtains. The red-to-green ratio is a real diagnostic, falling monotonically as the electrons harden13,14 — and the ladder never reorders: red, green, pink, top to bottom. Distance reshuffles what you see: the high red carries ~2,200 km past the horizon while green sets at ~1,150 km, which is why far aurora is red aurora. The field guide's color chapter is the full story — and the Painter's Exam above is where you prove you can use it.

advertisement

What is real here — and what is simplified

This lab is honest about being a teaching model. Each formula is real and cited, and each runs unmodified — but they are stitched together as a steady-state snapshot: you hold a wind condition, the desk shows where the system would settle. Real storms are time histories — sheaths, magnetic clouds, substorm cycles — which is exactly what the observatory's measured storm replays are for. The differences that matter:

The desk's wiring

GaugeModelSource
Polar-cap voltageΦ = 10⁻⁴·v² + 11.7·B·sin³(θ/2) kV, θ = clock angle; soft cap 250·tanh(Φ/250)Boyle et al. 19971; saturation6,7
Kp estimateKp = (Φ − 16.5) / 15.5, clamped 0–9Boyle et al. 19971
Merging ratedΦ/dt = v⁴ᐟ³·B²ᐟ³·sin⁸ᐟ³(θ/2)Newell et al. 20072
Magnetopauser₀ = (10.22 + 1.29·tanh(0.184(Bz+8.14)))·Pd⁻¹ᐟ⁶·⁶, flaring α(Bz, Pd)Shue et al. 19983
Storm sizeinjection −4.0·(VBs−0.5) nT/h, decay τ = 2.40·e^(9.74/(4.69+VBs)) h, +7.26·√Pd − 11O'Brien & McPherron 20004
Oval's equatorward edgeΛ = 67.22 − 1.89·Kp (midnight)Carbary 20055

Wind pressure: Pd = 1.6726×10⁻⁶·n·v² nPa. Storm-size classes follow the usual Dst conventions (−50 moderate, −100 intense, below −250 superstorm) — the same scale used across the field guide.

Sources

Entries marked runs in this page execute as code in this lab, unmodified.

  1. Boyle, C. B., Reiff, P. H. & Hairston, M. R. (1997). Empirical polar cap potentials. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 111–125. doi:10.1029/96JA01742runs in this page
  2. Newell, P. T., Sotirelis, T., Liou, K., Meng, C.-I. & Rich, F. J. (2007). A nearly universal solar wind–magnetosphere coupling function inferred from 10 magnetospheric state variables. J. Geophys. Res. 112, A01206. doi:10.1029/2006JA012015runs in this page
  3. Shue, J.-H. et al. (1998). Magnetopause location under extreme solar wind conditions. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 17691–17700. doi:10.1029/98JA01103runs in this page
  4. O'Brien, T. P. & McPherron, R. L. (2000). An empirical phase space analysis of ring current dynamics: solar wind control of injection and decay. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 7707–7719. doi:10.1029/1998JA000437runs in this page
  5. Carbary, J. F. (2005). A Kp-based model of auroral boundaries. Space Weather 3, S10001. doi:10.1029/2005SW000162runs in this page
  6. Siscoe, G. L. et al. (2002). Hill model of transpolar potential saturation: comparisons with MHD simulations. J. Geophys. Res. 107, 1075. doi:10.1029/2001JA000109
  7. Hairston, M. R., Drake, K. A. & Skoug, R. (2005). Saturation of the ionospheric polar cap potential during the October–November 2003 superstorms. J. Geophys. Res. 110, A09S26. doi:10.1029/2004JA010864
  8. Dungey, J. W. (1961). Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones. Phys. Rev. Lett. 6, 47–48. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.6.47
  9. Matzka, J. et al. (2021). The geomagnetic Kp index and derived indices of geomagnetic activity. Space Weather 19, e2020SW002641. doi:10.1029/2020SW002641
  10. Grandin, M. et al. (2024). The Gannon Storm: citizen science observations during the geomagnetic superstorm of 10 May 2024. Geosci. Commun. 7, 297–316. doi:10.5194/gc-7-297-2024
  11. Hayakawa, H. et al. (2025). The solar and geomagnetic storms in 2024 May: a flash data report. Astrophys. J. 979, 49. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9335
  12. Akasofu, S.-I. (1964). The development of the auroral substorm. Planet. Space Sci. 12, 273–282. doi:10.1016/0032-0633(64)90151-5
  13. Rees, M. H. & Luckey, D. (1974). Auroral electron energy derived from ratio of spectroscopic emissions. J. Geophys. Res. 79, 5181–5186. doi:10.1029/JA079i034p05181runs in this page
  14. Steele, D. P. & McEwen, D. J. (1990). Electron auroral excitation efficiencies and intensity ratios. J. Geophys. Res. 95, 10321–10336. doi:10.1029/JA095iA07p10321
advertisement
🧪 Improve this lab — a gauge misbehaving, or a dial you wish it had?
🐞 report a problem 💡 suggest an improvement

the sky · the sun · field guide · data & methods · about · privacy · pro · ☁️ seasonmap · ☕ support