ANGEOAnnales GeophysicaeANGEOAnn. Geophys.1432-0576Copernicus PublicationsGöttingen, Germany10.5194/angeo-36-1153-2018Sporadic auroras near the geomagnetic equator: in the Philippines, on 27 October
1856Sporadic auroras near the geomagnetic equatorHayakawaHisashihayakawa@kwasan.kyoto-u.ac.jpVaqueroJosé M.https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8754-1509EbiharaYusukeGraduate School of Letters, Osaka University, Toyonaka, 5600043, JapanScience and Technology Facilities Council, RAL Space, Rutherford
Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, UKJapan Society for the Promotion of Science, 5-3-1 Kojimachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0083, JapanDepartamento de Física, Universidad de Extremadura, 06800
Mérida, SpainResearch Institute for Sustainable Humanosphere, Kyoto University,
Uji, 6100011, JapanUnit of Synergetic Studies for Space, Kyoto University, Kyoto,
6068306, JapanHisashi Hayakawa (hayakawa@kwasan.kyoto-u.ac.jp)29August20183641153116030May201811June201818August2018This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is available from https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/36/1153/2018/angeo-36-1153-2018.htmlThe full text article is available as a PDF file from https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/36/1153/2018/angeo-36-1153-2018.pdf
While low-latitude auroral displays are normally considered to be a
manifestation of magnetic storms of considerable size, Silverman (2003, JGR,
108, A4) reported numerous “sporadic auroras” which appear locally at
relatively low magnetic latitude during times of just moderate magnetic
activity. Here, a case study is presented of an aurora near the geomagnetic
equator based on a report from the Philippine islands on 27 October 1856. An
analysis of this report shows it to be consistent with the known cases of
sporadic auroras, except for its appearance at considerably low magnetic latitude. The
record also suggests that an extremely low-latitude aurora is not always
accompanied by large magnetic storms. The description of its brief appearance
leads to a possible physical explanation based on an ephemeral magnetospheric
disturbance provoking this sporadic aurora.
Introduction
It is known that a low-latitude aurora is a manifestation of a magnetic storm
caused by solar eruptions (e.g. Gonzalez et al., 1994; Yokoyama et al., 1998; Shiokawa et al., 2005; Willis et
al., 2006; Odenwald, 2015). Since the beginning of systematic magnetic
observations in the mid-19th century, magnetic records have been compared
with auroral displays (e.g. Allen et al., 1989; Yokoyama et al., 1998; Silverman, 1995, 2006, 2008; Silverman and Cliver, 2001; Shiokawa et
al., 1998, 2005; Vaquero et al., 2008). In August and September 1859, solar
eruptions from large sunspots caused an intense magnetic storm reaching
values as extreme as 1600 nT in the horizontal geomagnetic field at Colaba
(Tsurutani et al., 2003; Nevanlinna, 2006; Ribeiro et al., 2011), with major
auroral displays seen worldwide down to magnetic latitudes (hereafter, MLATs)
as low as ∼20∘ (Kimball, 1960; Cliver and Svalgaard, 2004; Green
and Boardsen, 2006; Farrona et al., 2011; Cliver and Dietrich, 2013; Hayakawa
et al., 2016b; Lakhina and Tsurutani, 2016).
However, it is reported that auroral displays at low MLATs also occur during
low or moderate geomagnetic disturbances. Silverman (2003) examined these
auroral displays at relatively low MLAT during low or moderate geomagnetic
disturbances in the Climatological Data of the United States during
1880 to 1940, identifying 54 cases in the United States, and attesting to the
reality of “sporadic aurorae”, using the terminology of Botley (1963), who
defined this phenomenon as a “single ray in a sky otherwise seemingly clear
of auroral light, or isolated patches well to the equatorial side of a great
display”, citing Abbe (1895).
Willis et al. (2007) and Vaquero et al. (2007, 2013) surveyed this kind of
localized low-latitude auroral display in China, Spain, and Mexico to
identify reports during low or moderate geomagnetic activity. Silverman (2003) and Willis et al. (2007) drew attention to the question of the
mechanism behind them, as to how the localized auroral display can be seen
at a low latitude without there being any intense magnetic storms.
The original report in Spanish by Llanos (1857).
In this short contribution, we aim to describe a case of a “sporadic
aurora” in the Philippine islands, close to the geomagnetic equator. It
should be noted that auroras near the geomagnetic equator have yet to be
studied, and knowledge of them will be an important key to scientific
understanding of “sporadic auroras”.
Material and method
Antonio Llanos (1806–1881), a Spanish priest with an interest in botany and
meteorology (Vaquero et al., 2005), reports a curious account of an
“Observation of an aurora borealis in Manila (Observación de una aurora boreal en Manila)” (Llanos, 1857). As is explicit in the title,
Llanos considered this phenomenon an “aurora borealis” while being aware
that the appearance of an aurora at such low latitudes is extremely rare. He
associates the appearance of this aurora with exceptional (and unknown)
circumstances of the atmosphere, and therefore wrote up this report so that
physicists working on the origin of the phenomenon would have evidence of
this unusual observation.
Based on this historical report by Llanos, we shall consider the nature of
this phenomenon, compute the contemporary MLAT of the observation site, and
compare the record with contemporary geomagnetic activity.
Systematic magnetic
observations started in the 1840s, and the ak index has been
available from 1844 onwards, while the aa index has been available
from 1868 (Nevanlinna, 2004; Willis et al., 2007). We examine the values of
the ak index (Nevanlinna and Kataja, 1993; Nevanlinna, 2004) around
the date of observation provided by Llanos.
The aurora borealis on 27 October 1856
Antonio Llanos reported the auroral display to a Spanish journal entitled
Revista de los Progresos de las Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales (see Fig. 1). We summarize his report and review his
observation. First, we shall extract Llanos's description of the
observational report.
“At this moment [at 9 o'clock at night], observing the cloudscape of the
atmosphere, I noticed that, on the NW side, with a short difference there was
a faint but weak white light on that horizon, which at first I supposed was
produced by some cause, such as from a fire. In that part, there is a range
of mountains that form the provinces of Balanga and Zambales. The illuminated
space would only rise about 4∘ above the horizon, and the segment
width would be about 25∘. It seemed to be on the skirt or side of
these mountains opposite the NW, and as if it were stopped there, prevented
its passage by the said mountain ranges. At its base, the light was noticed
to be more clear and perceptible, and some more resplendent points could be
seen in its mass, noting also some movement of vertical undulation which it
manifested, sometimes stronger and sometimes weaker, until finally it
disappeared, leaving total darkness. When I began to notice it, I found it in
the said state, and the time of duration in my view would be some 5
minutes. That
illumination had scarcely disappeared, when on the opposite side of the first
quadrant, that is, in the NE, the same phenomenon was repeated with the same
circumstances as the previous one, although with a greater extension, there
being also another mountain range called Gapang, which runs in the same
direction from N to S, finding myself in the basin that these two ranges
comprise; but on this occasion it lasted longer, or double the first, and it
was 10 minutes, with the wind firmly on the same side or a little more to the
E, and with quite a lot of rain.”
The observational site and its magnetic latitude
Antonio Llanos explicitly writes his observational site as being Manila, and
its geographical latitude as at “latitude 15∘ N, a little more or
less”. We estimate his observational site as the old city area of Manila
(14∘35′ N, 120∘58′ E). We computed the contemporary
MLAT for this place in 1856, based on the dipole component of the GUFM1
geomagnetic field model (Jackson et al., 2000). We obtained the value of
3.3∘ MLAT. This value in 1900 is within 0.05∘ of difference from
that in 1900 as computed by the IGRF model (Thébault et al., 2015).
Therefore, one can fairly consider this observation to have been made near
the geomagnetic equator.
It is not common for auroral displays to be seen anywhere near the
geomagnetic equator. In some extreme magnetic storms, it is known that
auroral displays were visible down to some 18∘ to 30∘
MLAT, such as those in the major storms of 1989, 1921, 1909, 1872, 1870,
1859, 1770, and 1730 (Kimball, 1960; Allen et al., 1989; Silverman, 1995,
2006, 2008; Silverman and Cliver, 2001; Vaquero et al., 2008; Hayakawa et
al., 2017, 2018a, b; Ebihara et al., 2017; Willis et al., 1996), as
partially reviewed by Cliver and Svalgaard (2004) and Cliver and Dietrich (2013). However, this value (3.3∘ MLAT) is evidently closer to the
geomagnetic equator, and is much lower than in the other events.
Nature of this phenomenon
It is worth consideration as to whether this record of an “aurora borealis”
can be related to other phenomena. Antonio Llanos suspected this phenomenon
at first to be “as from a fire”, and ended by describing it as a “meteor
that is so rare at low northern latitudes” following his conclusion that it
was indeed an “aurora boreal”. Nonetheless, it is possible to find
atmospheric optics or comet tails have been misinterpreted as auroral
displays (e.g. Hayakawa et al., 2015, 2016a; Kawamura et al.,
2016; Carrasco et al., 2017;
Usoskin et al., 2017).
Its colour was described as “white” and less like low-latitude auroras.
However, due to the Purkinje effect, human eyes frequently perceive weak
lights as apparently whitish, as they are insensitive to
colour with weak brightness (Purkinje,
1825, p. 109; Minnaert, 1993, p. 133). Moreover, it was described as “a
faint but weak white light on that horizon”, and hence its brightness is
considered rather faint and weak. Therefore, it is likely that this
phenomenon is perceived as apparently whitish due to the Purkinje
effect.
Atmospheric optics is dependent on the Moon for its light source (e.g.
Minnaert, 1993). We computed the lunar phase on 27 October 1856, and obtained
a value of 0.96 based on the method described by Kawamura et al. (2016)
developed from Meeus (1988).
This means that it was almost a new moon, and one can probably exclude the
possibility that the light was associated with atmospheric optics from
moonlight at night. Fogbows cannot explain this phenomenon either as they
have a width of 25∘ or greater, much smaller than normal rainbows,
and they appear “nearly always … when the dazzling beam of a car's
headlights behind you penetrates the mist in front of you” (Minnaert, 1993,
pp. 201–202). Llanos did not describe any such “dazzling beam behind” him.
Likewise, its descriptions of “width of 25∘ or greater” and
duration for “some 5 minutes” or “10 minutes” show us that an upward
discharge from the top of a thundercloud is also unlikely (e.g. Pasko et al.,
2002), considering this glow was seen beyond the mountain ranges of Balanga
and Zambales, about 60 and 140 km away from Manila respectively.
We also considered the possibility of a meteor shower. Within the October
meteor showers listed in the catalogue of Kronk (2014, pp. 227–255), the
Orionids are one of the candidates. However, Llanos reported that “At its
base, the light was noticed to be more clear and perceptible”, and it is
unlikely that a meteor shower will decrease in brightness near the horizon.
Moreover, the duration of 5 or 10 min is too short for a meteor shower.
Likewise, it is also difficult to consider that this phenomenon might have
been a comet tail as it lasted only 5 min in the NW and 10 min in the NE.
Neither does Kronk (2003, pp. 245–246) report any comets in late 1856.
Mountain fire is also unlikely. While Llanos first suspected a fire in the
mountains to be the cause, he had not gotten any reports of fire in the
northern mountains of Manila, at least not until his publication. This
phenomenon had a width of 25∘ or greater and it would thus have to
have been a large fire, which would have soon been reported to Manila if it
were a fire in the mountains. Auroral displays are frequently mistaken for
conflagrations when they are bright enough. In the Carrington event, a
considerable number of observers in East Asia and North America
misinterpreted the auroral displays as being conflagrations (Green et al.,
2006; Hayakawa et al., 2016b).
Similar reports are found during other large magnetic storms with bright
auroral displays (Odenwald, 2007; Silverman, 2008; Vaquero et al., 2008;
Ebihara et al., 2017; Hayakawa et al., 2017).
It seems therefore that one has no strong reason to reject this as being one
instance of “sporadic aurorae” which appear locally at relatively low MLAT,
as reported in Silverman (2003). This case had a horizontal appearance of
∼25∘ in width and 4∘ in elevation. We would also note
that it appeared in the north-westerly direction for 5 min, and then in the
north-easterly direction for 10 min. Its base was brighter than the upper
part, with “vertical undulation”. These features also suggest its being
interpreted as a kind of auroral display. Assuming that the altitude of the
upper part of the aurora was 400 km (see Ebihara et al., 2017), we estimated that the aurora would have
appeared at 19.5∘ MLAT (23.9∘ invariant latitude, ILAT, in
the magnetic coordinates used to specify a magnetic field line in the space
physics community). ILAT Λ is constant along a field line, and is
given by
Λ=cos-1a/L,
where L is the distance in units of the Earth's radius between the centre of
the Earth and the point where the magnetic field line crosses the equatorial
plane (McIlwain, 1966). In contrast, MLAT λ varies along a field
line, and is given by
λ=cos-1R/L,
where R is the distance between the centre of the Earth and the specific
point. At the surface of the Earth, Λ is equal to λ.
Contemporary solar and geomagnetic activities
It is intriguing where this event is situated relative to solar and
geomagnetic activities. It is known that the frequency of occurrence of
magnetic storms is in relatively good agreement with the sunspot number (e.g.
Vázquez et al., 2006; Willis et al., 2006), while recent statistical
studies reveal that even the quieter Sun can on occasion also cause
superstorms (e.g. Kilpua et al., 2015).
Daily ak index (Nevanlinna, 1997) during the period 20
October–3 November 1856.
In terms of long-term solar activity, this event was mostly situated near the
solar minimum in 1856 (e.g. Clette et al., 2014; Vaquero et al., 2016). The
solar surface in October 1856 showed only a small number of
sunspots (Carrington, 1863; Vaquero
et al., 2016). Figure 2 shows the daily ak value observed at
Helsinki according to Nevanlinna (2004), indicating that the geomagnetic
activity was also very low. Figure 3 shows the H component of the geomagnetic field disturbances (ΔH) with a 1 h resolution. In the second half of the 19th century, a
typical precision of a magnetometer was around 1′ (e.g. Batlloì, 2005)
and may have caused apparently larger pseudo-random variations than those in
the present day. On 27 October 1856, ΔH at the Helsinki observatory
(geographic latitude 60.2∘ and geographic longitude 25.0∘)
exhibited a negative excursion, peaking at 15:00 UT, with an amplitude of
∼140 nT as shown in Fig. 3a. The sporadic aurora occurred around
21:00–21:15 LT (12:56–13:11 UT) at Manila, which roughly corresponds to
the descending phase of this negative excursion at Helsinki, by considering
that the differences in time zones between Manila (N 14∘35′,
E 120∘58′), Helsinki observatory (N 60∘10′,
E 24∘57′), and Greenwich are roughly 7.07 and 8.06 h on the basis of local mean
time (e.g. Nevanlinna, 2006, 2008). If this negative excursion is caused by
the ring current, the secular variation is negligible, and the magnetic
disturbance is independent of the magnetic local time, then the Dst would be
calculated approximately as Dst =ΔH/cos λ, where ΔH is the magnetic disturbance (Sugiura, 1964). Substituting ΔH of
∼140 nT and λ of 58.2∘ (Helsinki observatory), we
estimated Dst to be ∼-266 nT. The recovery of the negative excursion
takes place for only 1 h, which is too short to attribute it to the decay of
the storm-time ring current (Ebihara and Ejiri, 2003). The ionospheric
current could also contribute to the variation of ΔH. Figure 3b shows
ΔH at the Lovö observatory (59.3∘ N
and 17.8∘ E) in the March 1989 storm. The Lovö
observatory is close to Helsinki. To date, the March 1989 storm is the
largest since 1957 in terms of the minimum Dst values (-589 nT). The
amplitude of ΔH exceeds 1000 nT, which is probably associated with
the ionospheric current (in addition to other current systems such as the
ring current), and is much larger than observed in Helsinki on 27 October
1856. Although the cause of the magnetic disturbance is uncertain, it can be
said that the magnetic disturbance on 27 October 1856 was most likely low, at
least at Helsinki, in comparison with the large storm in March 1989.
Figure 3c shows ΔH at the Lovö observatory on 17–21 January
2002. The variation of ΔH on 19 January 2002 resembles that observed
on 27 October 1856 in terms of the negative excursion and subsequent
variation. The negative excursion starts at ∼ 12:00 UT, and peaked at
∼ 16:00 UT on 19 January 2002. According to the OMNI solar wind data
(King and Papitashvili, 2005), the negative excursion is associated with a
southward turning of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) and a rapid
increase in the solar wind dynamic pressure (data not shown). The sudden
increase in the solar wind dynamic pressure resulted in the sudden increase
in ΔH, which is visible in the 1 min resolution data at Lovö
(dotted line in Fig. 3c). The southward IMF continued until
∼ 15:00 UT, which could result in the intensification of the ring
current and the negative variation of ΔH. ΔH is highly
fluctuating throughout this period, which is caused by fluctuations of the
solar wind and IMF. The solar wind speed and density increased gradually,
starting at ∼ 05:00 UT on 19 January 2002, and the strength of the IMF
peaked at ∼ 09:00 UT on 19 January 2002. These characteristics may
correspond to a corotating interaction region (CIR) (Denton et al.,
2006). The Dst index did not reach -30 nT on 19–20 January 2002. The
amplitude of the negative excursion (∼140 nT) observed in 1856 is
roughly 5 times larger than that observed in 2002 (∼-30 nT). This might
indicate that the IMF Bz and/or solar wind velocity in 1856 was larger than
those in 2002.
From (a) to (c), the H component of the
geomagnetic field disturbance at Helsinki in 1859, Lovö in 1989, and
Lovö in 2002. The dotted line indicates the 1 min data.
Therefore, we cannot find evidence of any strong geomagnetic disturbance on
27 October 1856 as in intense magnetic storms such as the superstorms in 1859
that brought auroral display down to a low MLAT (Kimball, 1960; Tsurutani et
al., 2003; Cliver and Dietrich, 2013). One possible scenario is that a
short-lasting magnetospheric disturbance occurred to cause the sporadic
aurora. The disturbance is probably associated with a rapid enhancement of
the magnetospheric electric field which transports magnetospheric electrons
deeply earthwards (inwards). After being rapidly transported, the electrons
were probably scattered by some processes on the field line at the L value
of 1.20 (23.9∘ ILAT). The scattered electrons could then have
precipitated into the upper atmosphere, exciting oxygen atoms so as to cause
the aurora. The disturbance should have been strong, at least at the L
value of 1.20, but the duration should have been short (within at most
15 min). If the duration of a strong disturbance (convection) is relatively
long, hot ions also move inwards so as to intensify the plasma pressure (the
ring current) that principally disturbs the geomagnetic field characterized
by a negative excursion of the H component of the magnetic field (Ebihara
and Ejiri, 2003). The observation shows that the ring current was not
strongly developed during this period. One of the possible causes of the
short-lasting, large-amplitude disturbance is the interplanetary shock that
reached the Earth. The compressional magnetospheric wave that was excited at
the dayside magnetopause could propagate towards the Earth in the direction
perpendicular to the magnetic field (e.g. Wilson and Sugiura, 1961).
Shock-associated disturbances are observed in the magnetosphere at all
magnetic local times at an L value as low as ∼1.2 (Shinbori et al.,
2003, 2014). The transient compression of the magnetic field in the
magnetosphere could result in the excitation of electromagnetic ion
cyclotron (EMIC) waves (e.g. Immel et al., 2005) and chorus waves (e.g. Fu et
al., 2012; Zhou et al., 2015). Interacting with the EMIC or chorus waves, the
magnetospheric particles undergo pitch angle scattering, resulting in their
precipitation into the upper atmosphere. According to observations, the wave
intensifications and shock-associated auroras occur primarily on the dayside
(e.g. Anderson and Hamilton, 1993; Zhang et al., 2004, 2008; Zhou et al.,
2015). This seems to be inconsistent with the present aurora observation
which was made at 21:00, local time. If the normal angle of the shock slants
a lot, the impact of the interplanetary shock could be large enough in the
late evening region (e.g. Selvakumaran et al., 2017) to excite EMIC and/or
chorus waves at probably 21:00, local time.
Usually, the magnetic disturbance associated with an interplanetary shock
lasts for just a few minutes to a few tens of minutes depending on solar wind dynamic pressure (Araki et al., 2004) and
orientation angle of the shock front (Takeuchi et al., 2002). This short
duration may explain why no significant disturbance was recorded in the daily
ak index as shown in Fig. 2, and in the hourly geomagnetic field
data at Helsinki (N 60∘10′, E 24∘57′) as shown in
Fig. 3a. Since shock-associated magnetic disturbance is a global phenomenon
(e.g. Nishida and Jacobs, 1962; Araki, 1994), the disturbance would have been
detectable at Helsinki if the temporal resolution was high enough as shown in
Fig. 3c. Due to its short duration, other observers may have missed it,
instead seeing the clear sky at around “9 o'clock at night”, Manila local
time. This may explain why we have no auroral report on that same night at
around 23.9∘ ILAT, for example, from observers in East Asia (Willis
et al., 2007; Kawamura et al., 2016).
Conclusion
In this short contribution, we have examined the record of an “aurora
borealis” at Manila on 27 October 1856. According to our analysis of the
text, we consider this record to indeed be likely one of an auroral display
as was considered by the observer himself, Antonio Llanos. Reconstruction of
contemporary MLAT showed that Manila was situated at 3.3∘ MLAT, close
to the geomagnetic equator. However, we could find no large sunspots or large
geomagnetic storms associated with this auroral report. We did not find any
contemporary auroral display reports in Willis et al. (2007) or Kawamura et al. (2016). This means that
this auroral display was local at a low MLAT, and should be categorized as an
instance of “sporadic auroras”. In the analogy to the magnetic variation
observed at Lovö in 2002, the sporadic aurora may be associated with a
shock embedded in an interface of a corotating interaction region (CIR). The
shock may result in transmission of an electromagnetic pulse propagating in
the magnetosphere. In the course of the propagation, magnetospheric electrons
could precipitate into the ionosphere, brightening the sporadic aurora.
Further studies are needed to confirm this scenario in the future. As far as
we know, this example is the first evidence of a sporadic aurora in Southeast
Asia and near the geomagnetic equator. Together with known records of
sporadic auroras from the United States (Silverman, 2003), East Asia (Willis
et al., 2007), Spain (Vaquero et al., 2007), and Mexico (Vaquero et al.,
2013), this record should provide a further resource with which to consider
the physical nature of this phenomenon. Although this is rather an isolated
phenomenon, further research into this phenomenon may merit studies of
long-term variations of geomagnetic activity and the terrestrial magnetic
field as well.
The OMNI data were obtained from the GSFC/SPDF
OMNI Web interface at https://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov (GSFC/SPDF, 2018).
HH originated the discussion and prepared the manuscript. JMV
initiated the idea and collaboration, providing and translating the main
historical source. YE constructed the possible scenario for this event. All
authors contributed to the discussion and the writing of the final
manuscript.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to Heikki Nevanlinna and Ari Viljanen, who provided
the daily ak index values, and the World Data Center for
Geomagnetism, Kyoto, for providing the magnetic observation data. This
research was also partially supported by the Economy and Infrastructure Board
of the Junta of Extremadura through project IB16127 and grant GR15137
(co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund), the Ministerio de
Economía y Competitividad of the Spanish Government (AYA2014-57556-P and
CGL2017-87917-P), a grant-in-aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, grant numbers JP15H05816 (PI:
Shigeo Yoden), JP15H03732 (PI: Yusuke Ebihara), JP16H03955 (PI: Kazunari Shibata), JP
18H01254 (PI: Hiroaki Isobe), and JP15H05815 (PI: Yoshizumi Miyoshi), a grant-in-aid for
JSPS Research Fellow JP17J06954 (PI: Hisashi Hayakawa), and the Exploratory and
Mission Research Projects of the Research Institute for Sustainable
Humanosphere (PI: Hiroaki Isobe). The authors gratefully thank Sam M. Silverman
for attracting our attention to the sporadic aurora and Tiera Laitinen and
another anonymous referee for their helpful and constructive comments on our
paper. The topical editor, Ana G. Elias,
thanks Tiera Laitinen and one anonymous referee for help in evaluating this
paper.
References
Abbe, C.: An aurora in South Carolina and Kentucky, Mon. Weather Rev., 23, 297–298, 1895.Allen, J., Frank, L., Sauer, H., and Reiff, P.: Effects of the March 1989
solar activity, EOS, 70, 1486–1488, 10.1029/89EO00409,
1989.Anderson, B. J. and Hamilton, D. C.: Electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves
stimulated by modest magnetospheric compressions, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 11369–11382,
10.1029/93JA00605, 1993.Araki, T.: A Physical Model of the Geomagnetic Sudden Commencement, in:
Solar Wind Sources of Magnetospheric Ultra-Low-Frequency Waves, edited by: Engebretson, M. J., Takahashi, K. and Scholer, M., American Geophysical
Union, Washington, DC, USA, 10.1029/GM081p0183, 1994.Araki, T., Takeuchi, T., and Araki, Y.: Rise time of geomagnetic sudden
commencements – Statistical analysis of ground geomagnetic data, Earth
Planet. Space, 56, 289–293, 10.1186/BF03353411, 2004.
Batlloì, J.: Cataòlogo inventario de magnetoìmetros españoles, Centro Nacional de Informacion Geograìfica, Madrid, Spain, 2005.
Botley, C. M.: Sporadic aurora, Planet. Space Sci., 11, 723–724, 1963.Carrasco, V. M. S., Trigo, R., and Vaquero, J. M.: Unusual rainbows as auroral
candidates: Another point of view, P. Astron. Soc. Jpn., 69, L1, 10.1093/pasj/psw127, 2017.
Carrington, R. C.: Observations of the spots on the sun from November 9, 1853, to March 24, 1861, made at Redhill, William & Norgate, London, UK, 1863.Clette, F., Svalgaard, L., Vaquero, J. M., and Cliver, E. W.: Revisiting the
Sunspot Number. A 400-Year Perspective on the Solar Cycle, Space Sci. Rev., 186,
35–103, 10.1007/s11214-014-0074-2, 2014.Cliver, E. W. and Dietrich, W. F.: The 1859 space weather event revisited: limits
of extreme activity, J. Space Weather Spac., 3, A31, 10.1051/swsc/2013053, 2013.Cliver, E. W. and Svalgaard, L.: The 1859 Solar-Terrestrial Disturbance And the
Current Limits of Extreme Space Weather Activity, Sol. Phys., 224, 407–422, 10.1007/s11207-005-4980-z, 2004.Denton, M. H., Borovsky, J. E., Skoug, R. M., Thomsen, M. F., Lavraud, B.,
Henderson, M. G., McPherron, R. L., Zhang, J. C., and Liemohn, M. W.:
Geomagnetic storms driven by ICME- and CIR-dominated solar wind, J. Geophys.
Res., 111, A07S07, 10.1029/2005JA011436, 2006.
Ebihara, Y. and Ejiri, M.: Numerical simulation of the ring current, Space Sci. Rev.,
105, 377–452, 2003.Ebihara, Y., Hayakawa, H., Iwahashi, K., Tamazawa, H., Kawamura, A. D., and
Isobe, H.: Possible cause of extremely bright aurora witnessed in East
Asia on 17 September 1770, Space Weather, 15, 1373–1382,
10.1002/2017SW001693, 2017.Farrona, A. M., Gallego, M. C., Vaquero, J. M., and Domínguez-Castro,
F.: Spanish Eyewitness Accounts of the Great Space Weather Event of 1859,
Acta Geod. Geophys. Hu., 46, 370–377, 10.1556/AGeod.46.2011.3.7, 2011.Fu, H. S., Cao, J. B., Mozer, F. S., Lu, H. Y., and Yang, B.: Chorus
intensification in response to interplanetary shock, J. Geophys. Res., 117, A01203, 10.1029/2011JA016913, 2012.Gonzalez, W. D., Joselyn, J. A., Kamide, Y., Kroehl, H. W., Rostoker, G.,
Tsurutani, B. T., and Vasyliunas, V. M.: What is a geomagnetic storm?, J. Geophys. Res., 99,
5771–5792, 10.1029/93JA02867, 1994.Green, J. and Boardsen, S.: Duration and extent of the great auroral storm of
1859, Adv. Space Res., 38, 130–135, 10.1016/j.asr.2005.08.054, 2006.
Green, J. L., Boardsen, S., Odenwald, S., Humble, J., and Pazamickas, K. A.
Eyewitness reports of the great auroral storm of 1859, Adv. Space
Res., 38, 145–154, 2006.GSFC/SPDF: OMNI data, available at: https://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov, last
access: 20 August 2018.Hayakawa, H., Tamazawa, H., Kawamura, A. D., and Isobe, H.: Records of sunspot
and aurora during CE 960–1279 in the Chinese chronicle of the Sòng
dynasty, Earth. Planet. Space, 67, 82, 10.1186/s40623-015-0250-y, 2015.Hayakawa, H., Isobe, H., Kawamura, A. D., Tamazawa, H., Miyahara, H., and Kataoka, R.: Unusual rainbow and white rainbow: A new auroral
candidate in oriental historical sources, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn., 68, 33,
10.1093/pasj/psw032, 2016a.Hayakawa, H., Iwahashi, K., Tamazawa, H., Isobe, H., Kataoka, R., Ebihara,
Y., Miyahara, H., Kawamura, A. D., and Shibata, K.: East Asian observations
of low latitude aurora during the Carrington magnetic storm, Publ. Astron.
Soc. Jpn., 68, 99, 10.1093/pasj/psw097, 2016b.Hayakawa, H., Iwahashi, K., Ebihara, Y., Tamazawa, H., Shibata, K., Knipp, D.
J., Kawamura, A. D., Hattori, K., Mase, K., Nakanishi, I., and Isobe, H.:
Long-lasting Extreme Magnetic Storm Activities in 1770 Found in Historical
Documents, Astrophys. J. Lett., 850, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9661,
2017.Hayakawa, H., Ebihara, Y., Vaquero, J. M., Hattori, K., Carrasco, V. M. S.,
Gallego, M. C., Hayakawa, S., Watanabe, Y., Iwahashi, K., Tamazawa, H.,
Kawamura, A. D., and Isobe, H.: A great space weather event in February 1730,
Astron. Astrophys., 10.1051/0004-6361/201832735, 2018a.Hayakawa, H., Ebihara, Y., Willis, D. M., Hattori, K., Giunta, A. S., Wild,
M. N., Hayakawa, S., Toriumi, S., Mitsuma, Y., Macdonald, L. T., Shibata, K.,
and Silverman, S. M.: The Great Space Weather Event during February 1872
Recorded in East Asia, Astrophys. J., 862, 15,
10.3847/1538-4357/aaca40, 2018b.
Immel, T. J., Mende, S. B., Frey, H. U., Patel, J., Bonnel, H. W.,
Engebretson, M. J., and Fuselier, S. A.: ULF waves associated with enhanced sub-auroral proton precipitation, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., 159,
71, 2005.
Jackson, A., Jonkers, A. R. T., and Walker, M.: Four centuries of geomagnetic
secular variation from historical records, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 358, 957, 2000.Kawamura, A. D., Hayakawa, H., Tamazawa, H., Miyahara, H., and Isobe, H.:
Aurora candidates from the chronicle of Qíng dynasty in several degrees of
relevance, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn,, 68, 79, 10.1093/pasj/psw074,
2016.Kilpua, E. K. J., Olspert, N., Grigorievskiy, A., Käpylä, M. J.,
Tanskanen, E. I., Miyahara, H., Kataoka, R., Pelt, J., and Liu, Y. D.:
Statistical Study of Strong and Extreme Geomagnetic Disturbances and Solar
Cycle Characteristics, Astrophys. J., 806, 272,
10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/272, 2015.
Kimball, D. S.: A study of the aurora of 1859. Scientific Report No. 6, University of Alaska, No. 6, 1960.
King, J. H. and Papitashvili, N. E.: Solar wind spatial scales in and
comparisons of hourly Wind and ACE plasma and magnetic field data, J.
Geophys. Res., 110, A02209, 10.1029/2004JA010649, 2005.
Kronk, G. W.: Cometography: A Catalog of Comets, III, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.
Kronk, G. W.: Meteor Showers, an Annotated Catalog, Springer, New York, USA, 2014.Lakhina, G. S. and Tsurutani, B. T.: Geomagnetic storms: historical perspective
to modern view, Geosci. Lett., 3, 5, 10.1186/s40562-016-0037-4, 2016.
Llanos, A.: Observación de una aurora boreal en Manila, Revista de los
Progresos de las Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, 7, 223–225, 1857.
McIlwain, C. E.: Magnetic coordinates, Space Sci. Rev., 5, 585–598, 1966.
Meeus, J.: Astronomical algorithms, 2nd ed., Richmond, Willmann-Bell, VA,
USA, 1998.
Minnaert, M. G. J.: Light and Color in the Outdoors, Springer, New York, USA, 1993.Nevanlinna, H.: Gauss' H-Variometer at the Helsinki Magnetic Observatory
(1844–1912), J. Geomagn. Geoelectr., 49, 1209–1216, 10.5636/jgg.49.1209, 1997.Nevanlinna, H.: Results of the Helsinki magnetic observatory 1844-1912, Ann.
Geophys., 22, 1691–1704, 10.5194/angeo-22-1691-2004, 2004.
Nevanlinna, H.: A study on the great geomagnetic storm of 1859: Comparisons
with other storms in the 19th century, Adv. Space Res., 38, 180–187, 2006.
Nevanlinna, H. and Kataja, E.: An extension of the geomagnetic activity index
series aa for two solar cycles (1844–1868), Geophys. Res. Lett., 20, 2703–2706, 1993.Nishida, A. and Jacobs, J. A.: World-wide changes in the geomagnetic field,
J. Geophys. Res., 67, 525–540, 10.1029/JZ067i002p00525, 1962.Odenwald, S.: Newspaper reporting of space weather: End of a golden age,
Adv. Space Res., 5, S11005, 10.1029/2007SW000344, 2007.
Odenwald, S.: Solar Storms: 2000 years of human calamity! Createspace Independent Publishing Platform, San
Bernardino, CA, USA, 2015.Pasko, V. P., Stanley, M. A., Mathews, J. D., Inan, U. S., and Wood, T. G.:
Electrical discharge from a thundercloud top to the lower ionosphere, Nature, 416, 152–154, 10.1038/416152a, 2002.
Purkinje, J. E.: Neue Beiträge zur Kenntniss des Sehens in
Subjectiver Hinsicht (Berlin: Reimer), 1825.
Ribeiro, P., Vaquero, J. M., and Trigo, R.: Geomagnetic records of Carrington's
storm from Guatemala, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phy., 73, 308–315, 2011.Selvakumaran, R., Veenadhari, B., Ebihara, Y., Kumar, S., and Prasad, D. S.: The
role of interplanetary shock orientation on SC/SI rise time and
geoeffectiveness, Adv. Space Res., 59, 1425–1434, 10.1016/j.asr.2016.12.010, 2017.Shinbori, A., Ono, T., Izima, M., Kumamoto, A., and Oya, H.: Sudden
commencements related plasma waves observed by the Akebono satellite in the
polar region and inside the plasmasphere region, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 1457, 10.1029/2003JA009964, 2003.Shinbori, A., Ono, T., Iizima, M., and Kumamoto, A.: SC related electric and magnetic
field phenomena observed by the Akebono satellite inside the plasmasphere,
Earth Planet. Space., 56, 269, 10.1186/BF03353409, 2014.Shiokawa, K., Meng, C.-I., Reeves, G. D., Rich, F. J., and Yumoto, K.: A
multievent study of broadband electrons observed by the DMSP satellites and
their relation to red aurora observed at midlatitude stations, J. Geophys. Res., 102,
14237–14253, 10.1029/97JA00741, 1998.Shiokawa, K., Ogawa, T., and Kamide, Y.: Low-latitude auroras observed in Japan:
1999–2004, J. Geophys. Res., 110, A05202, 10.1029/2004JA010706, 2005.
Silverman, S. M.: Low latitude auroras: the storm of 25 September 1909,
J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 57, 673–685, 1995.Silverman, S. M.: Sporadic auroras, J. Geophys. Res., 108, A4, 10.1029/2002JA009335, 2003.
Silverman, S. M.: Comparison of the aurora of September 1/2, 1859 with other
great auroras, Adv. Space Res., 38, 136–144, 2006.
Silverman, S. M.: Low-latitude auroras: The great aurora of 4 February 1872, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phy., 70, 1301–1308,
2008.
Silverman, S. M. and Cliver, E. W.: Low-latitude auroras: the magnetic storm of
14–15 May 1921, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phy., 63, 523–535, 2001.
Sugiura, M.: Hourly values of equatorial Dst for the IGY, Ann. Int. Geophys. Year, Pergamon
Press, Oxford, UK, 35, 1964.Takeuchi, T., Russell, C. T., and Araki, T.: Effect of the orientation of
interplanetary shock on the geomagnetic sudden commencement, J. Geophys.
Res., 107, 1423, 10.1029/2002JA009597, 2002.Thébault, E., Finlay, C. C., Beggan, C. D., et al.: International
Geomagnetic Reference Field: the 12th generation, Earth Planet. Space, 67, 1,
10.1186/s40623-015-0228-9, 2015.Tsurutani, B. T., Gonzales, W. D., Lakhina, G. S., and Alex, S.: The extreme
magnetic storm of 1–2 September 1859, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 1268, 10.1029/2002JA009504,
2003.Usoskin, I. G., Kovaltsov, G. A., Mishina, L. N., Sokoloff, D. D., and Vaquero,
J.: An Optical Atmospheric Phenomenon Observed in 1670 over the City of
Astrakhan Was Not a Mid-Latitude Aurora, Sol. Phys., 292, 15, 10.1007/s11207-016-1035-6, 2017.
Vaquero, J. M., Gallego, M. C., and García, J. A.: Early meteorological
records of Manila: El Niño episode of 1864, Atmósfera, 18, 245–258, 2005.
Vaquero, J. M., Trigo, R., and Gallego, M. C.: Sporadic Aurora in Spain,
Earth Planet. Space, 59, e49–e51, 2007.Vaquero, J. M., Valente, M. A., Trigo, R. M., and Gallego, M. C.: The 1870
Space Weather Event: Geomagnetic and Auroral Records, J. Geophys. Res., 113,
A08230, 10.1029/2007JA012943, 2008.
Vaquero, J. M., Gallego, M. C., and Domínguez-Castro, F.: A possible case of Sporadic Aurora in 1843 from
Mexico, Geofís. Int., 52, 87–92, 2013.Vaquero, J. M., Svalgaard, L., Carrasco, V. M. S., Clette, F., Lefèvre,
L., Gallego, M. C., Arlt, R., Aparicio, A. J. P., Richard, J.-G., and Howe,
R.: A Revised Collection of Sunspot Group Numbers, Sol. Phys., 291,
3061–3074, 10.1007/s11207-016-0982-2, 2016.Vázquez, M., Vaquero, J. M., and Curto, J. J.: On the Connection Between
Solar Activity and Low-Latitude Aurorae in the Period 1715–1860, Sol. Phys., 238,
405–420, 10.1007/s11207-006-0194-2, 2006.
Willis, D. M., Henwood, R., and Stephenson, F. R.: The presence of large
sunspots near the central solar meridian at the times of modern Japanese
auroral observations, Ann. Geophys., 24, 2743–2758, 2006.Willis, D. M., Stephenson, F. R., and Huiping Fang: Sporadic aurorae observed
in East Asia, Ann. Geophys., 25, 417–436,
10.5194/angeo-25-417-2007, 2007.Wilson, C. R. and Sugiura, M.: Hydromagnetic interpretation of sudden
commencements of magnetic storms, J. Geophys. Res., 66, 12, 4097–4111, 10.1029/JZ066i012p04097, 1961.Yokoyama, N., Kamide, Y., and Miyaoka, H.: The size of the auroral belt
during magnetic storms, Ann. Geophys., 16, 566–573,
10.1007/s00585-998-0566-z, 1998.Zhang, Y., Paxton, L. J., Meng, C.-I., Morrison, D., Wolven, B., Kil, H.,
and Christensen, A. B.: Double dayside detached auroras: TIMED/GUVI
observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L10801, 10.1029/2003GL018949, 2004.Zhang, Y., Paxton, L. J., and Zheng, Y.: Interplanetary shock induced ring
current auroras, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A01212, 10.1029/2007JA012554, 2008.Zhou, C., Li, W., Thorne, R. M., Bortnik, J., Ma, Q., An, X., Zhang, X.,
Angelopoulos, V., Ni, B., Gu, X., Fu, S., and Zhao, Z.: Excitation of dayside
chorus waves due to magnetic field line compression in response to
interplanetary shocks, J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 120, 8327–8338,
10.1002/2015JA021530, 2015.