Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamics of Cosmic-Ray Cutoff Rigidity and Magnetospheric Parameters during Different Phases of the Storm of November 20, 2003

  • Published:
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The correlations between variations in the geomagnetic cutoff rigidity of cosmic rays and the Dst and Kp geomagnetic indices and solar-wind and IMF parameters are calculated for the three phases of the magnetic storm of November 20–21, 2003: before the storm and during its main and recovery phases. The correlations are the strongest between variations in the cutoff rigidity and the Dst index during all stages. A significant correlation was recorded with the By component of IMF and the field magnitude B; the correlation with By dominated during the main phase, and the correlation with B was dominant during the recovery phase. There is also a high correlation with the dynamic parameters of solar activity during the main phase, especially with the solar-wind speed. As far as we know, hysteresis phenomena have been discovered for the first time in the relationship between the cosmic-ray cutoff rigidities and the parameters of the helio- and magnetosphere on the scale of the magnetic storm (with Moscow station as an example). Loop-like patterns formed, because the trajectories of variations in the cutoff rigidities versus the studied parameters during storm intensification (development of current systems) did not coincide with the trajectories during the recovery phase (decay of current systems). The correlations of the cutoff rigidities with Dst and Kp indices were characterized by a narrow hysteresis loop, and their correlations with the IMF parameters were characterized by a wide hysteresis loop. The hysteresis loops for the relationship between the cutoff rigidities and solar-wind density and pressure were disordered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Adriani, O., Barbarino, G.C., Bazilevskaya, G.N., Bellotti, R., et al., Pamela’s measurements of geomagnetic cutoff variations during the 14 December 2006 storm, Space Weather, 2016, vol. 14, no. 3. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016SW001364

  2. Atabekov, G.I., Teoreticheskie osnovy elektrotekhniki. Lineinye elektricheskie tsepi (Theoretical Foundations of Electrical Engineering. Linear Electric Circuits), St. Petersburg: Lan’, 2009.

  3. Belov, A., Baisultanova, L., Eroshenko, E., Mavromichalaki, H., Yanke, V., Pchelkin, V., Plainaki, C., and Mariatos, G., Magnetospheric effects in cosmic rays during the unique magnetic storm on November 2003, J. Geophys. Res., 2005, vol. 110, A09S20. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JA011067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Borovsky, J.E., Physics based solar-wind driver functions for the magnetosphere: Combining the reconnection-coupled MHD generator with the viscous interaction, J. Geophys. Res., 2013, vol. 118, no. 11, pp. 7119–7150. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Borovsky, J.E., Canonical correlation analysis of the combined solar-wind and geomagnetic-index data sets, J. Geophys. Res., 2014, vol. 119. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JA019607

  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JA019193

  7. Burov, V.A., Meleshkov, Yu.S., and Ochelkov, Yu.P., A technique of operational assessment of the radiation hazard level due to space weather disturbances during air transportation, Geliogeofiz. Issled., 2014, no. 7, pp. 61–81.

  8. Burton, R.K., McPherron, R.L., and Russel, C.J., An empirical relationship between interplanetary conditions and Dst, J. Geophys. Res., 1975, vol. 80, pp. 4204–4214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crooker, N.U., Dayside merging and cusp geometry, J. Geophys. Res., 1979, vol. 84, pp. 951–959. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA084iA03p00951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Daglis, I.A., Thorne, R.M., Baumjohann, W., and Orisini, S., The terrestrial ring current: Origin, formation, evolution, and decay, Rev. Geophys., 1999, vol. 37, pp. 407–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Danilova, O.A., Demina, I.A., Ptitsyna, N.G., and Tyasto, M.I., Mapping of geomagnetic cutoff rigidity of cosmic rays during the main phase of the magnetic storm of November 20, 2003, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2019, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793219020051

  12. Dungey, J.W., Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1961, vol. 6, pp. 47–48. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.6.47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dvornikov, V.E. and Sdobnov, V.E., Variations in the rigidity spectrum and anisotropy cosmic rays at the period of Forbush effect on the 12–25 July 1982, Int. J. Geomagn. Aeron., 2002, vol. 3, pp. 217–223.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ebihara, Y., Fok, M.-C., Sazykin, S., Thomsen, M.F., Hairston, M.R., Evans, D.S., Rich, F.J., and Ejiri, M., Ring current and the magnetosphere–ionosphere coupling during the superstorm of 20 November 2003, J. Geophys. Res., 2005. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010924

  15. Goertz, C.K., Shan, L.-H., and Smith, R.A., Prediction of geomagnetic activity, J. Geophys. Res., 1993, vol. 98, no. A5, pp. 7673–7684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gosling, J.T., Bake, D.N., Bame, S.J., Feldman, W.C., Zwickl, R.D., and Smith, E.J., North–south and dawn–dusk plasma asymmetries in the distant tail lobes. ISEE 3, J. Geophys. Res., 1985, vol. 90, pp. 6354–6360. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA090iA07p06354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Iucci, N., Levitin, A.E., Belov, A.V., Eroshenko, E.A., Ptitsyna, N.G., Villoresi, G., Chizhenkov, G.V., Dorman, L.I., Parisi, M., Tyasto, M.I., and Yanke, V.G., Space weather conditions and spacecraft anomalies in different orbits, Space Weather, 2005, vol. 3, S01001. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003SW000056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kane, R.P., Hysteresis loops of cosmic ray intensity decreases versus solar and interplanetary parameters, Ann. Geophys., 2007, vol. 25, no. 9. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-25-2087-2007

  19. Kanekal, S., Baker, D., Blake, J., Klecker, B., Cummings, J., Mewaldt, R., Mason, G., and Mazur, J., High-latitude energetic particle boundaries and the polar cap: A statistical study, J. Geophys. Res.: Space, 1998, vol. 103, pp. 9367–9372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kress, B.T., Mertens, C.J., and Wiltberger, M., Solar energetic particle cutoff variations during the 29–31 October 2003 geomagnetic storm, Space Weather, 2010, vol. 8, S05001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kress, B.T., Hudson, M.K., Selesnick, R.S., Mertens, C.J., and Engel, M., Modeling geomagnetic cutoffs for space weather applications, J. Geophys. Res.: Space, 2015, vol. 120, no. 7, pp. 5694–5702. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McCracken, K.G., Rao, U.R., and Shea, M.A., The trajectories of cosmic rays in a high degree simulation of the geomagnetic field, MIT Tech. Rep. 77, Cambridge: Mass. Inst. of Technol., Lab. of Nucl. Sci. and Eng., 1962.

  23. Newel, 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. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JA012015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Park, K.S., Ogino, T., and Walke, R.J., On the importance of antiparallel reconnection when the dipole tilt and IMF By are nonzero, J. Geophys. Res., 2006, vol. 111, A05202. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ptitsyna, N.G., Danilova, O.A., Tyasto, M.I., and Sdobnov, V.E., Influence of the solar wind and geomagnetic activity parameters on variations in the cosmic ray cutoff rigidity during strong magnetic storms, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2019, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793219050098

  26. Ptitsyna, N.G., Danilova, O.A., and Tyasto, M.I., Correlation of the cosmic-ray cutoff rigidity with heliospheric and geomagnetic-activity parameters at different phases of a magnetic storm in November 2004, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2020, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793220020139

  27. Rawat, R., Alex, S., and Lakhina, G.S., Geomagnetic storm characteristics under varied interplanetary conditions, Bull. Astron. Soc. India, 2007, vol. 35, pp. 499–509.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rich, F.J. and Ejiri, M., Ring current and the magnetosphere–ionosphere coupling during the superstorm of 20 November 2003, J. Geophys. Res., 2005, vol. 110, no. A9, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ridley, A.J., Alfvén wings at Earth’s magnetosphere under strong interplanetary magnetic fields, Ann. Geophys., 2007, vol. 25, pp. 533–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Serensen, S.V., Kogaev, V.P., and Shneiderovich, R.M., Nesushchaya sposobnost' detalei mashin (Carrying Capacity of Machine Components), Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1975.

  31. Shea, M.A., Smart, D.F., and McCracken, K.G., A study of vertical cutoff rigidities using sixth degree simulations of the geomagnetic field, J. Geophys. Res., 1965, vol. 70, pp. 4117–4130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shimazu, H., Solar proton event and proton propagation in the Earth’s magnetosphere, J. Natl. Inst. Inf. Commun. Technol., 2009, vol. 56, nos. 1–4, pp. 191–199.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tsyganenko, N.A., A model of the near magnetosphere with a dawn–dusk asymmetry 1. Mathematical structure, J. Geophys. Res., 2002a, vol. 107, no. A8, 1179. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tsyganenko, N.A., A model of the near magnetosphere with a down–dusk asymmetry: 2. Parameterization and fitting to observations, J. Geophys. Res., 2002b, vol. 107, no. A8, 1176. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tsyganenko, N.A., Singer, H.J., and Kasper, J.C., Storm-time distortion of the inner magnetosphere: How severe can it get?, J. Geophys. Res., 2003, vol. 108, no. A5, 1209. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tyasto, M.I., Danilova, O.A., Dvornikov, V.M., and Sdobnov, V.E., Reflection of the solar wind parameters in the CR geomagnetic cutoff rigidity before a strong magnetic storm in November 2003, Geomagn, Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2008, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 691–708.

  37. Tyasto, M.I., Danilova, O.A., and Sdobnov, V.E., Variations in the geomagnetic cutoff rigidity of CR in the period of magnetospheric disturbances of May 2005: Their correlation with interplanetary parameters, Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci.: Phys., 2011, vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 808–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tyasto, M.I., Danilova, O.A., Ptitsyna, N.G., and Sdobnov, V.E., Variations in cosmic ray cutoff rigidities during the great geomagnetic storm of November 2004, Adv. Space Res., 2013, vol. 51, pp. 1230–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tyasto, M.I., Danilova, O.A., Ptitsyna, N.G., and Sdobnov, V.E., Variations in cosmic ray cutoff rigidities during the great geomagnetic storm of November 2004, Soln.-Zemnaya Fiz., 2015, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 97–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tyssøy, H.N. and Stadsnes, J., Cutoff latitude variation during solar proton events: Causes and consequences, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys., 2014, vol. 120, pp. 553–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Veselovsky, I.S., Panasyuk, M.I., Avdyushin, S.I., Bazilevskaya, G.A., et al., Solar and heliospheric phenomena in October–November 2003: Causes and effects, Cosmic Res., 2004, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 435–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Yermolaev, Yu.I., Zelenyi, L.M., Zastenker, G.N., et al., Solar and heliospheric disturbances that resulted in the strongest magnetic storm of November 20, 2003, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2005, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 20–46.

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The equipment of the Angara Collective Use Center (http://ckp–rf.ru/ckp/3056/) and the Russian National Ground-Based Network of Cosmic Ray Stations was used to determine RGSM. We are grateful to the OMNI team for the use of the database created within the GSFC/SPDF OMNIWeb Project (http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov). We are also grateful to the reviewer for useful remarks and suggestions.

Funding

The work was partly supported by Program of Fundamental Scientific Research II.16.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St. Petersburg Branch of Pushkov Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radio Wave Propagation, Russian Academy of Sciences, 191023, St. Petersburg, Russia

    N. G. Ptitsyna, O. A. Danilova & M. I. Tyasto

  2. Institute of Solar–Terrestrial Physics, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Irkutsk, Russia

    V. E. Sdobnov

Authors
  1. N. G. Ptitsyna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. O. A. Danilova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. I. Tyasto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. V. E. Sdobnov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to N. G. Ptitsyna or O. A. Danilova.

Additional information

Translated by O. Ponomareva

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ptitsyna, N.G., Danilova, O.A., Tyasto, M.I. et al. Dynamics of Cosmic-Ray Cutoff Rigidity and Magnetospheric Parameters during Different Phases of the Storm of November 20, 2003. Geomagn. Aeron. 61, 169–179 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793221010114

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793221010114

Search

Navigation