Normalized to: Smart, D.
[1]
oai:arXiv.org:1711.06161 [pdf] - 1593776
GLE and Sub-GLE Redefinition in the Light of High-Altitude Polar Neutron
Monitors
Submitted: 2017-11-15, last modified: 2017-11-28
The conventional definition of ground-level enhancement (GLE) events requires
a detection of solar energetic particles (SEP) by at least two differently
located neutron monitors. Some places are exceptionally well suitable for
ground-based detection of SEP - high-elevation polar regions with negligible
geomagnetic and reduced atmospheric energy/rigidity cutoffs. At present, there
are two neutron-monitor stations in such locations on the Antarctic plateau:
SOPO/SOPB (at Amundsen-Scott station, 2835 m elevation), and DOMC/DOMB (at
Concordia station, 3233 m elevation). Since 2015, when the DOMC/DOMB station
started continuous operation, a relatively weak SEP event that was not detected
by sea-level neutron-monitor stations was registered by both SOPO/SOPB and
DOMC/DOMB, and it was accordingly classified as a GLE. This would lead to a
distortion of the homogeneity of the historic GLE list and the corresponding
statistics. To address this issue, we propose to modify the GLE definition so
that it maintains the homogeneity: A GLE event is registered when there are
near-time coincident and statistically significant enhancements of the count
rates of at least two differently located neutron monitors, including at least
one neutron monitor near sea level and a corresponding enhancement in the
proton flux measured by a space-borne instrument(s). Relatively weak SEP events
registered only by high-altitude polar neutron monitors, but with no response
from cosmic-ray stations at sea level, can be classified as sub-GLEs.
[2]
oai:arXiv.org:1501.01204 [pdf] - 1029441
Low time resolution analysis of polar ice cores cannot detect impulsive
nitrate events
Submitted: 2015-01-06
Ice cores are archives of climate change and possibly large solar proton
events (SPEs). Wolff et al. (2012) used a single event, a nitrate peak in the
GISP2-H core, which McCracken et al. (2001a) time associated with the poorly
quantified 1859 Carrington event, to discredit SPE-produced, impulsive nitrate
deposition in polar ice. This is not the ideal test case. We critique the Wolff
et al. analysis and demonstrate that the data they used cannot detect impulsive
nitrate events because of resolution limitations. We suggest re-examination of
the top of the Greenland ice sheet at key intervals over the last two millennia
with attention to fine resolution and replicate sampling of multiple species.
This will allow further insight into polar depositional processes on a
sub-seasonal scale, including atmospheric sources, transport mechanisms to the
ice sheet, post-depositional interactions, and a potential SPE association.