Solar Physics

, 292:99 | Cite as

Forbush Decrease: A New Perspective with Classification

  • Anil Raghav
  • Zubair Shaikh
  • Ankush Bhaskar
  • Gauri Datar
  • Geeta Vichare
Article

Abstract

Sudden short-duration decreases in cosmic ray flux, known as Forbush decreases (FDs), are mainly caused by interplanetary disturbances. A generally accepted view is that the first step of an FD is caused by a shock sheath and the second step is due to the magnetic cloud (MC) of the interplanetary coronal mass ejection (ICME). This simplistic picture does not consider several physical aspects, such as whether the complete shock sheath or MC (or only part of these) contributes to the decrease or the effect of internal structure within the shock-sheath region or MC. We present an analysis of 16 large (\({\geq}\,8 \%\)) FD events and the associated ICMEs, a majority of which show multiple steps in the FD profile. We propose a reclassification of FD events according to the number of steps observed in their respective profiles and according to the physical origin of these steps. This study determines that 13 out of 16 major events (\({\sim}\,81\%\)) can be explained completely or partially on the basis of the classic FD model. However, it cannot explain all the steps observed in these events. Our analysis clearly indicates that not only broad regions (shock sheath and MC), but also localized structures within the shock sheath and MC have a significant role in influencing the FD profile. The detailed analysis in the present work is expected to contribute toward a better understanding of the relationship between FD and ICME parameters.

Keywords

Shock-sheath Magnetic cloud (MC) ICME Cosmic ray Forbush decrease Local magnetic structures 

Supplementary material

11207_2017_1121_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.3 mb)
(PDF 1.3 MB)

References

  1. Arunbabu, K., Antia, H., Dugad, S., Gupta, S., Hayashi, Y., Kawakami, S., Mohanty, P., Nonaka, T., Oshima, A., Subramanian, P.: 2013, High-rigidity Forbush decreases: Due to CMEs or shocks? Astron. Astrophys. 555, A139. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badruddin: 2002a, Shock orientations, magnetic turbulence and Forbush decreases. Solar Phys. 209(1), 195. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badruddin: 2002b, Transient modulation of cosmic ray intensity: Role of magnetic clouds and turbulent interaction regions. Astrophys. Space Sci. 281(3), 651. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnden, L.: 1973, The large-scale magnetic field configuration associated with Forbush decreases. In: International Cosmic Ray Conference 2, 1277. Google Scholar
  5. Belov, A.: 2008, Forbush effects and their connection with solar, interplanetary and geomagnetic phenomena. Proc. Int. Astron. Union 4(S257), 439. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belov, A., Eroshenko, E., Oleneva, V., Struminsky, A., Yanke, V.: 2001, What determines the magnitude of Forbush decreases? Adv. Space Res. 27(3), 625. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belov, A., Abunin, A., Abunina, M., Eroshenko, E., Oleneva, V., Yanke, V., Papaioannou, A., Mavromichalaki, H., Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S.: 2014, Coronal mass ejections and non-recurrent Forbush decreases. Solar Phys. 289(10), 3949. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhaskar, A., Subramanian, P., Vichare, G.: 2016, Relative contribution of the magnetic field barrier and solar wind speed in ICME-associated Forbush decreases. Astrophys. J. 828(2), 104. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhaskar, A., Vichare, G., Arunbabu, K., Raghav, A.: 2016, Role of solar wind speed and interplanetary magnetic field during two-step Forbush decreases caused by interplanetary coronal mass ejections. Astrophys. Space Sci. 361(7), 1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhaskar, A., Ramesh, D.S., Vichare, G., Koganti, T., Gurubaran, S.: 2017, Quantitative assessment of drivers of recent global temperature variability: An information theoretic approach. Clim. Dyn., 1. Google Scholar
  11. Candia, J., Roulet, E.: 2004, Diffusion and drift of cosmic rays in highly turbulent magnetic fields. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2004(10), 007. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cane, H.V.: 2000, Coronal mass ejections and Forbush decreases. Space Sci. Rev. 93(1 – 2), 55. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dumbović, M., Vršnak, B., Čalogović, J., Karlica, M.: 2011, Cosmic ray modulation by solar wind disturbances. Astron. Astrophys. 531, A91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dumbović, M., Vršnak, B., Čalogović, J., Župan, R.: 2012, Cosmic ray modulation by different types of solar wind disturbances. Astron. Astrophys. 538, A28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giacalone, J., Jokipii, J.: 1999, The transport of cosmic rays across a turbulent magnetic field. Astrophys. J. 520(1), 204. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hess, V.F., Demmelmair, A.: 1937, World-wide effect in cosmic ray intensity as observed during a recent magnetic storm. Nature 140, 316. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jordan, A., Spence, H.E., Blake, J., Shaul, D.: 2011, Revisiting two-step Forbush decreases. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 116(A11). Google Scholar
  18. Khabarova, O.V., Zank, G.P., Li, G., Malandraki, O.E., le Roux, J.A., Webb, G.M.: 2016, Small-scale magnetic islands in the solar wind and their role in particle acceleration. II. Particle energization inside magnetically confined cavities. Astrophys. J. 827(2), 122. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Khabarova, O., Zank, G., Li, G., le Roux, J., Webb, G., Dosch, A., Malandraki, O.: 2015, Small-scale magnetic islands in the solar wind and their role in particle acceleration. I. dynamics of magnetic islands near the heliospheric current sheet. Astrophys. J. 808(2), 181. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Papaioannou, A., Malandraki, O., Belov, A., Skoug, R., Mavromichalaki, H., Eroshenko, E., Abunin, A., Lepri, S.: 2010, On the analysis of the complex Forbush decreases of January 2005. Solar Phys. 266(1), 181. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Potgieter, M.S.: 2013, Solar modulation of cosmic rays. Living Rev. Solar Phys. 10(1), 1. ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Raghav, A., Bhaskar, A., Lotekar, A., Vichare, G., Yadav, V.: 2014, Quantitative understanding of Forbush decrease drivers based on shock-only and CME-only models using global signature of February 14, 1978 event. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2014(10), 074. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Richardson, I., Cane, H.: 2010, Near-Earth interplanetary coronal mass ejections during solar cycle 23 (1996 – 2009): Catalog and summary of properties. Solar Phys. 264(1), 189. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Richardson, I., Cane, H.: 2011, Galactic cosmic ray intensity response to interplanetary coronal mass ejections/magnetic clouds in 1995 – 2009. Solar Phys. 270(2), 609. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Richardson, I., Wibberenz, G., Cane, H.: 1996, The relationship between recurring cosmic ray depressions and corotating solar wind streams at \({\leq}\,1~\mbox{AU}\): IMP 8 and Helios 1 and 2 anticoincidence guard rate observations. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 101(A6), 13483. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaikh, Z., Raghav, A., Bhaskar, A.: 2016, Presence of turbulent and ordered local structure within ICME shock-sheath and its contribution in Forbush decrease. Astrophys. J. Accepted. arXiv.
  27. Subramanian, P., Antia, H., Dugad, S., Goswami, U., Gupta, S., Hayashi, Y., Ito, N., Kawakami, S., Kojima, H., Mohanty, P., et al.: 2009, Forbush decreases and turbulence levels at coronal mass ejection fronts. Astron. Astrophys. 494(3), 1107. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vanhellemont, F., Fussen, D., Bingen, C.: 2002, Cosmic rays and stratospheric aerosols: Evidence for a connection? Geophys. Res. Lett. 29(15). Google Scholar
  29. Vourlidas, A., Lynch, B.J., Howard, R.A., Li, Y.: 2013, How many CMEs have flux ropes? Deciphering the signatures of shocks, flux ropes, and prominences in coronagraph observations of CMEs. Solar Phys. 284(1), 179. ADSGoogle Scholar
  30. Wibberenz, G., Le Roux, J., Potgieter, M., Bieber, J.: 1998, Transient effects and disturbed conditions. In: Cosmic Rays in the Heliosphere, Springer, Berlin, 309. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anil Raghav
    • 1
  • Zubair Shaikh
    • 1
  • Ankush Bhaskar
    • 2
  • Gauri Datar
    • 1
  • Geeta Vichare
    • 2
  1. 1.University Department of PhysicsUniversity of MumbaiMumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Indian Institute of GeomagnetismNavi MumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations