{"id":807,"date":"2026-07-25T06:30:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-24T21:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onepress.co.kr\/?post_type=briefing&#038;p=807"},"modified":"2026-07-25T15:42:39","modified_gmt":"2026-07-25T06:42:39","slug":"2026-07-25-solar-storm-saturation-nasa-en","status":"publish","type":"briefing","link":"https:\/\/onepress.co.kr\/index.php\/briefing\/2026-07-25-solar-storm-saturation-nasa-en\/","title":{"rendered":"A NASA-led study says solar storm limits may be a measurement illusion"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>2026-07-25 15:40 KST<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>A Nature paper highlighted by NASA questions the long-running idea that Earth\u2019s upper-atmosphere response to strong solar wind saturates at a ceiling. After accounting for measurement uncertainty and regression to the mean, the response may continue rising linearly, with no current statistical evidence for an upper limit.<\/p>\n<p>This is not a warning that a solar storm is imminent. It is a study that may change how satellites, communications, navigation, and power-grid risk models treat extreme space weather.<\/p>\n<h2>What Is Being Revisited<\/h2>\n<p>Past studies often interpreted polar ionospheric currents as rising with stronger solar wind and then leveling off. The Nature paper argues that this apparent saturation can emerge when upstream solar-wind measurements at L1 are used as imperfect estimates of the driver that actually reaches near-Earth space.<\/p>\n<h2>The Evidence<\/h2>\n<p>The authors used observations from 1995 to 2019 and an error model for the solar-wind driver. After correction, the average Earth response remained linear up to 15 mV\/m, and the paper says there is currently no statistical evidence for an upper limit to energy transfer into the polar ionosphere.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/onepress.co.kr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/solar-storm-saturation-nasa-en.png\" alt=\"Produced image explaining solar-wind measurement uncertainty and Earth magnetospheric response\" loading=\"eager\" \/><figcaption class=\"op-briefing-image-caption\">Produced image: ONEPRESS illustrates solar wind, measurement location, and Earth\u2019s magnetospheric response. It is not a warning about a specific storm or a disaster scene.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2>Why Technology Risk Changes<\/h2>\n<p>Strong geomagnetic storms can affect satellites, communications, navigation signals, and power grids. NASA says that if the saturation assumption is wrong, extreme impacts on technology may have been underestimated. The paper notes that impacts could be about twice previous estimates when extrapolated to roughly 25 mV\/m.<\/p>\n<h2>What Is Still Unknown<\/h2>\n<p>The study does not prove that saturation is impossible at solar-wind strengths never observed. Extreme-event data are limited, and real infrastructure risk also depends on solar-wind structure, magnetospheric state, and grid vulnerability.<\/p>\n<h2>Next Checks<\/h2>\n<p>The next checks are measurements closer to Earth, more extreme-event observations, and whether space-weather prediction models account for this calibration issue. NASA gives the technology context; the Nature article provides the model and limitations.<\/p>\n<h2>Official Sources<\/h2>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/science.nasa.gov\/blogs\/science-news\/2026\/07\/15\/new-nasa-study-says-possibly-no-limit-to-solar-storm-effects\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">NASA Science: revised interpretation of solar-storm saturation and technology risk context<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41586-026-10757-4\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Nature article: regression-to-the-mean effect, measurement uncertainty, and limits of saturation evidence<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A Nature paper highlighted by NASA questions the long-running idea that Earth\u2019s upper-atmosphere response to strong solar wind saturates at a ceiling. After accounting for measurement uncertainty and regression to the mean, the response may continue rising linearly, with no current statistical evidence for an upper limit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"class_list":["post-807","briefing","type-briefing","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onepress.co.kr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/briefing\/807","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onepress.co.kr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/briefing"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onepress.co.kr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/briefing"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onepress.co.kr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=807"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}