Statistical Study of the Effect of Different Solar Wind Types on Magnetic Storm Generation During 1995–2016
- 24 Downloads
This paper is a continuation of the research conducted by Nikolaeva et al. (2015, 2017), in which the possible difference in the generation of magnetic storms induced by different large-scale types of solar wind (SW) streams (corotating interaction regions (CIRs), sheaths, magnetic clouds (MCs), and ejecta) were discussed. It was shown in these works that sheath- and CIR-induced magnetic storms demonstrate the greatest geoeffectiveness for the period 1976–2000 with the coupling function introduced by Burton et al. (1975), which couples the integral electric field of the SW Ey = VBz to the Dst and Dst* indices. The use of 12 other coupling functions with different interplanetary parameters and magnetosphere states available in the literature has shown that their efficiency for each type of SW streams depends on the type of function used. In this paper, we study the generation efficiency of the main storm phase for the same four stream types (CIR, sheath, MC, and ejecta) based on OMNI data for the period 1995–2016, which contains a more complete set of data on SW parameters. The results confirm that magnetic storm generation depends on the type of interplanetary source and the high efficiency of the coupling function in the form of an integral of Ey for sheath and CIR streams. The problems of the applicability of the coupling functions used to predict magnetic storms are discussed.
We are grateful for the possibility of using the OMNI database.
OMNI data were obtained from the site (http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov). This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 16-12-10062.
- 1.Balikhin, M.A., Boynton, R.J., Billings, S.A., Gedalin, M., Ganushkina, N., Coca, D., and Wei, H., Data based quest for solar wind–magnetosphere coupling function, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2010, vol. 37, L24107. doi 10.1029/2010GL045733Google Scholar
- 2.Borovsky, J.E., The rudiments of a theory of solar-wind/magnetosphere coupling derived from first principles, J. Geophys. Res., 2008, vol. 113, A08228. doi 10.1029/2007JA012646Google Scholar
- 5.Borovsky, J.E., Canonical correlation analysis of the combined solar-wind and geomagnetic-index data sets, J. Geophys. Res., 2014, vol. 119. doi 10.1002/2013JA019607Google Scholar
- 6.Borovsky, J.E. and Birn, J., The solar wind electric field does not control the dayside reconnection rate, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys., 2014, vol. 119. doi 10.1002/2013JA019193Google Scholar
- 7.Borovsky, J.E. and Denton, M.H., Differences between CME-driven storms and CIR-driven storms, J. Geophys. Res., 2006, vol. 28, pp. 121–190.Google Scholar
- 10.Guo, J., Feng, X., Emery, B.A., Zhang, J., Xiang, C., Shen, F., and Song, W., Energy transfer during intense geomagnetic storms driven by interplanetary coronal mass ejections and their sheath regions, J. Geophys. Res., 2011, vol. 116, A05106. doi 10.1029/2011JA016490Google Scholar
- 11.Hardy, D.A., Burke, W.J., Gussenhoven, M.S., Heinemann, N., and Holeman, E., DMSP/F2 electron observations of equatorward auroral boundaries and their relationship to the solar wind velocity and north–south component of the interplanetary magnetic field, J. Geophys. Res., 1981, vol. 86, no. A12, pp. 9961–9974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Newell, P.T., Sotirelis, T., Liou, K., Meng, C.-I., and Rich, F.J., A nearly universal solar wind–magnetosphere coupling function inferred from 10 magnetospheric state variables, J. Geophys. Res., 2007, vol. 112, A01206. doi 10.1029/2006JA012015Google Scholar
- 19.Nikolaeva, N.S., Yermolaev, Yu.I., and Lodkina, I.G., Dependence of geomagnetic activity during magnetic storms on solar-wind parameters for different types of streams: 4. Simulation for magnetic clouds, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2014, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 152–161.Google Scholar
- 22.Nikolaeva, N.S., Yermolaev, Yu.I., and Lodkina, I.G., Does magnetic storm generation depend on the solar wind type?, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2017, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 512–518.Google Scholar
- 24.Pulkkinen, T.I., Partamies, N., Huttunen, K.E.J., Reeves, G.D., and Koskinen, H.E.J., Differences in geomagnetic storms driven by magnetic clouds and ICME sheath regions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2007, vol. 34, L02105. doi 10.1029/2006GL027775Google Scholar
- 28.Wilder, F.D., Clauer, C.R., Baker, J.B.H., Cousins, E.P., and Hairston, M.R., The nonlinear response of the polar cap potential under southward IMF: A statistical view, J. Geophys. Res., 2011, vol. 116, A12229. doi 10.1029/2011JA016924Google Scholar
- 30.Yermolaev, Yu.I., Yermolaev, M.Yu., Nikolaeva, N.S., and Lodkina, L.G., Interplanetary conditions for CIR-induced and MC-induced geomagnetic storms, Bulg. J. Phys., 2007, vol. 34, pp. 128–135.Google Scholar
- 34.Yermolaev, Y.I., Nikolaeva, N.S., Lodkina, I.G., and Yermolaev, M.Y., Geoeffectiveness and efficiency of CIR, Sheath, and ICME in generation of magnetic storms, J. Geophys. Res., 2012, vol. 117, A00L07. doi 10.1029/2011JA017139Google Scholar
- 35.Yermolaev, Y.I., Lodkina, I.G., Nikolaeva, N.S., and Yermolaev, M.Y., Influence of the interplanetary driver type on the durations of the main and recovery phases of magnetic storms, J. Geophys. Res., 2014, vol. 119, no. 10, pp. 8216–8136. doi 10.1002/2014JA019826Google Scholar
- 36.Yermolaev, Y.I., Lodkina, I.G., Nikolaeva, N.S., and Yermolaev, M.Y., Dynamics of large-scale solar wind streams obtained by the double superposed epoch analysis, J. Geophys. Res., 2015, vol. 120. doi 10.1002/2015JA021274Google Scholar
- 37.Yermolaev, Y.I., Lodkina, I.G., Nikolaeva, N.S., et al., Dynamics of large-scale solar-wind streams obtained by the double superposed epoch analysis: 2. Comparisons of CIRs vs. Sheaths and MCs vs. Ejecta, Sol. Phys., 2017, no. 12, vol. 292, id 193. doi 10.1007/s11207-017-1205-1Google Scholar