Reconstruction of geomagnetic activity and near-Earth interplanetary conditions over the past 167 yr – Part 1: A new geomagnetic data composite

We present a new composite of geomagnetic activity which is designed to be as homogeneous in its construction as possible. This is done by only combining data that, by virtue of the locations of the source observatories used, have similar responses to solar wind and IMF (interplanetary magnetic field) variations. This will enable us (in Part 2, Lockwood et al., 2013a) to use the new index to reconstruct the interplanetary magnetic field, B, back to 1846 with a full analysis of errors. Allowance is made for the effects of secular change in the geomagnetic field. The composite uses interdiurnal variation data from Helsinki for 1845–1890 (inclusive) and 1893–1896 and from Eskdalemuir from 1911 to the present. The gaps are filled using data from the Potsdam (1891–1892 and 1897–1907) and the nearby Seddin observatories (1908–1910) and intercalibration achieved using the Potsdam–Seddin sequence. The new index is termed IDV(1d) because it employs many of the principles of the IDV index derived by Svalgaard and Cliver (2010), inspired by the u index of Bartels (1932); however, we revert to using one-day (1d) means, as employed by Bartels, because the use of near-midnight values in IDV introduces contamination by the substorm current wedge auroral electrojet, giving noise and a dependence on solar wind speed that varies with latitude. The composite is compared with independent, early data from European-sector stations, Greenwich, St Petersburg, Parc St Maur, and Ekaterinburg, as well as the composite u index, compiled from 2–6 stations by Bartels, and the IDV index of Svalgaard and Cliver. Agreement is found to be extremely good in all cases, except two. Firstly, the Greenwich data are shown to have gradually degraded in quality until new instrumentation was installed in 1915. Secondly, we infer that the Bartels u index is increasingly unreliable before about 1886 and overestimates the solar cycle amplitude between 1872 and 1883 and this is amplified in the proxy data used before 1872. This is therefore also true of the IDV index which makes direct use of the u index values.

Reconstruction of geomagnetic activity and near-Earth interplanetary conditions over the past 167 yr - Part 4: Near-Earth solar wind speed, IMF, and open solar flux

In the concluding paper of this tetralogy, we here use the different geomagnetic activity indices to reconstruct the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) and solar wind flow speed, as well as the open solar flux (OSF) from 1845 to the present day. The differences in how the various indices vary with near-Earth interplanetary parameters, which are here exploited to separate the effects of the IMF and solar wind speed, are shown to be statistically significant at the 93% level or above. Reconstructions are made using four combinations of different indices, compiled using different data and different algorithms, and the results are almost identical for all parameters. The correction to the aa index required is discussed by comparison with the Ap index from a more extensive network of mid-latitude stations. Data from the Helsinki magnetometer station is used to extend the aa index back to 1845 and the results confirmed by comparison with the nearby St Petersburg observatory. The optimum variations, using all available long-term geomagnetic indices, of the near-Earth IMF and solar wind speed, and of the open solar flux, are presented; all with ±2sigma� uncertainties computed using the Monte Carlo technique outlined in the earlier papers. The open solar flux variation derived is shown to be very similar indeed to that obtained using the method of Lockwood et al. (1999).

Reconstruction of geomagnetic activity and near-Earth interplanetary conditions over the past 167 yr - Part 3: improved representation of solar cycle 11

Svalgaard (2014) has recently pointed out that the calibration of the Helsinki magnetic observatory’s H component variometer was probably in error in published data for the years 1866–1874.5 and that this makes the interdiurnal variation index based on daily means, IDV(1d), (Lockwood et al., 2013a), and the interplanetary magnetic field strength derived from it (Lockwood et al., 2013b), too low around the peak of solar cycle 11. We use data from the modern Nurmijarvi station, relatively close to the site of the original Helsinki Observatory, to confirm a 30% underestimation in this interval and hence our results are fully consistent with the correction derived by Svalgaard. We show that the best method for recalibration uses the Helsinki Ak(H) and aa indices and is accurate to ±10 %. This makes it preferable to recalibration using either the sunspot number or the diurnal range of geomagnetic activity which we find to be accurate to ±20 %. In the case of Helsinki data during cycle 11, the two recalibration methods produce very similar corrections which are here confirmed using newly digitised data from the nearby St Petersburg observatory and also using declination data from Helsinki. However, we show that the IDV index is, compared to later years, too similar to sunspot number before 1872, revealing independence of the two data series has been lost; either because the geomagnetic data used to compile IDV has been corrected using sunspot numbers, or vice versa, or both. We present corrected data sequences for both the IDV(1d) index and the reconstructed IMF (interplanetary magnetic field).We also analyse the relationship between the derived near-Earth IMF and the sunspot number and point out the relevance of the prior history of solar activity, in addition to the contemporaneous value, to estimating any “floor” value of the near-Earth interplanetary field.

The reception of T. S. Bayer’s 'Historia Regni Graecorum Bactriani' (1738)

Theophilus (Gottlieb) Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738) is usually credited as the first person in modern times to address the history of the Greeks in Bactria in a serious way. Bayer’s Historia Regni Graecorum Bactriani, brings together numismatic and historical research. He describes two Graeco-Bactrian coins which he was able to examine first hand, and collects and comments upon the Classical historical sources on the Greek kingdoms of Bactria and India. It was published in St. Petersburg in 1738, where Bayer, a German, held an academic position. In this short article, I am interested in two questions surrounding the Historia Regni Graecorum Bactriani. First (and relatively briefly), how Bayer conducted his research without first hand access to source material and without himself travelling in Bactria – or indeed further east than St. Petersburg. Secondly, the way in which Bayer’s scholarship was received by some of his contemporaries and by later writers, outside the field of Bactrian studies.