Advertisement

Earth, Planets and Space

, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp 251–257 | Cite as

Contributions of the external field to the observatory annual means and a proposal for their corrections

  • Giuli VerbanacEmail author
  • Hermann Lühr
  • Martin Rother
  • Monika Korte
  • Mioara Mandea
Open Access
Article

Abstract

In this study we separate, interpret and explain magnetospheric and ionospheric signals present in the observatory annual means. The data from 46 European geomagnetic observatories collected over 42 years (1960–2001) are used. To characterise the various field components, we use predictions from latest magnetic field models. The core field and its secular variation are described by the CM4 model, and the magnetospheric contributions are successfully removed by parameterising the POMME model with the Dst index. We regard the remaining signal as being caused by ionospheric currents. The annual averages of the Sq variation estimated by the CM4 model are subtracted from the residuals. A remaining variation in anti-phase with the magnetic activity index Ap finally can be removed with a function properly scaled by Ap and Dst. We offer an objective procedure to suppress the external field contributions in the annual means to an uncertainty level of ±2 nT. Except for the ionospheric currents, this could be achieved by applying recent magnetic field models, which shows that the quality of present day models is sufficient to correct observatory data for average external field contributions. Understanding the signal contained in the annual means is a prerequisite for obtaining reliable and physically meaningful results when such data are used in studies of the core field and its secular variation.

Key words

Geomagnetic field observatory annual means external field ring current ionospheric currents magnetic field models 

References

  1. Barraclough, D. R., J. M. Harwood, B. R. Leaton, and S. R. C. Malin, A definitive model of the geomagnetic field and its secular variation for 1965, i. derivation of model and comparison with the IGRF, Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc., 55, 111–121, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Kikucki, T., H. Lühr, T. Kitamura, O. Saka, and K. Schlegel, Direct penetration of the polar electric field to the equator during a Dp2 event, as detected by the auroral and equatorial magnetometer chains and the EISCAT radar, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 17161–17173, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Korte, M. and R. Holme, Regularization of spherical cap harmonics, Geophys. J. Int., 153, 253–262, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Langel, R. A., D. J. Nerridge, D. R. Barraclough, and S. R. C. Malin, Geomagnetic temporal change: 1903–1982. A spline representation, J. Geomag. Geoelectr., 38, 573–597, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Macmillan, S., S. Maus, T. Bondar, A. Chambodut, V. Golovkov, R. Holme, B. Langlais, V. Lesur, F. Lowes, H. Lühr, W. Mai, M. Mandea, N. Olsen, M. Rother, T. Sabaka, A. Thomson, and I. Wardinski, The 9th-generation International Geomagnetic Reference Field, Geophys. J. Int., 155, 1051–1056, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Maus, S. and H. Lühr, Signature of the quiet-time magnetospheric magnetic field and its electromagnetic induction in the rotating Earth, Geophys. J. International, 162(3), 755–763, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Maus, S., H. Lühr, G. Balasis, M. Rother, and M. Mandea, Introducing POMME, The Potsdam Magnetic Model of the Earth, in Earth Observation with CHAMP, Results from Three Years in Space, edited by C. Reigber, H. Lühr, P. Schwintzer, and J. Wickert, pp. 293–298, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Maus, S. and P. Weidelt, Separating the magnetospheric disturbance magnetic field into external and transient internal contributions using a 1D conductivity model of the Earth, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L12614, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McLeod, M., Signals and noise in magnetic observatory annual means: mantle conductivity and jerks, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 17261–17290, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sabaka, T., N. Olsen, and M. Purucker, Extending comprehensive models of the Earth’s magnetic field with Oersted and CHAMP data, Geophys. J. Int., 159, 521–547, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schmucker, U., Solar cycle variations and corrected annual means for external effects at Fuerstenfeldbruck 1951–1968), Münchner Geo-physikalische Mitteilungen, 5, 217–248, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. Siebert, M. and J. Meyer, Geomagnetic activity indices, in The Upper Atmosphere, edited by W. Dieminger, G.K. Hartmann, and R. Leitinger, pp. 887–911, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. Verbanac, G., M. Korte, and M. Mandea, On long-term trends of the European geomagnetic observatory biases, Earth Planets Space, 2006a (submitted).Google Scholar
  14. Verbanac, G., H. Lühr, and M. Rother, Evidence of the ring current effect in geomagnetic observatories annual means, Geofizika, 23, 13–20, 2006b.Google Scholar
  15. Yukutake, T. and J. Cain, Solar cycle variations in the annual mean values of the geomagnetic components of observatory data, J. Geomag. Geoelectr, 39, 19–46, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Geomagnetism and Earth, Planetary and Space Sciences (SGEPSS); The Seismological Society of Japan; The Volcanological Society of Japan; The Geodetic Society of Japan; The Japanese Society for Planetary Sciences. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuli Verbanac
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hermann Lühr
    • 1
  • Martin Rother
    • 1
  • Monika Korte
    • 1
  • Mioara Mandea
    • 1
  1. 1.GeoForschungsZentrum PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations