Demonstrates a new deep learning method to estimate solar and geomagnetic parameters from historical sunspot data, suggesting enhanced modeling for extreme space weather events.
In this study, we investigate the solar and geomagnetic parameters of the 1859 Carrington event using deep learning and empirical relationships. For this, we apply an image translation model, a popular deep learning method based on conditional Generative Adversarial Networks, to the generation of magnetograms from sunspot drawings. We train the model using pairs of sunspot data from Debrecen Photoheliographic Data and their corresponding Solar and Heliospheric Observatory/Michelson Doppler Imager (SOHO/MDI) and Solar Dynamics Observatory/Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (SDO/HMI) magnetograms from 1996 to 2018, using data from January–July and December of each year for training and data from August and November for validation. To test the model, we compare actual magnetograms with artificial-intelligence-based (AI-based) ones for September and October. Our results show that the unsigned magnetic fluxes of AI-based magnetograms closely match those of the originals. Applying this model to Carrington’s full-disk sunspot drawing of 1 September 1859, we generate an AI-based magnetogram and estimate its unsigned magnetic flux. To estimate solar and geomagnetic parameters, we use the following empirical relationships: magnetic flux and flare peak flux, magnetic flux and coronal mass ejection (CME) speed, CME speed and transit time, CME speed and interplanetary CME (ICME) speed, and CME speed and the Disturbance Storm Time (Dst) index to obtain upper-limit estimates for an extreme event. We find that the estimated Sun–Earth transit time is 16.7 hours, consistent with the historical observations. The corresponding Dst value is about –1313 nT, which is broadly consistent with previous reconstruction-based estimates for the Carrington storm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: