Relationship between the Parameters of Various Solar Wind Types and Geomagnetic Activity Indices
- 11 Downloads
This paper analyzes the correlation between planetary indices of geomagnetic activity Dst, ap, and AE and the values of coupling functions, calculated from data on plasma and magnetic field parameters during four types of solar wind (SW) streams: the regions of interaction of streams with different velocities (co-rotating interaction region—CIR), interplanetary manifestations of coronal mass ejections ICMEs (MC and Ejecta), and the Sheath compression regions in front of MC and Ejecta. To select SW types, we used data from ftp://ftp.iki.rssi.ru/pub/omni/ for 1995–2016, in which 744 CIR, 118 MC, 501 Sheath, and 843 Ejectaevents were identified. The coupling functions were calculated based on the OMNI data base. The analysis has shown low values of correlation coefficients (R < 0.5) between the coupling functions and Dst index for all SW types. For the ap and AE indices, a rather strong correlation with coupling functions (0.6 < R < 0.82) was obtained for all SW types. The geoeffectiveness of coupling functions, estimated from the values of linear regression coefficients, has the highest values for the ap index for the Sheath and MC SW types. For the auroral AE index, the highest values of coupling function efficiencies were obtained for the CIR and Ejecta SW types.
The authors express their gratitude for the possibility of using the OMNI database.
The OMNI data were obtained from the website (http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov). The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project no. 16-02-00125.
- 4.Kane, R.P., How good is the relationship of solar and interplanetary plasma parameters with geomagnetic storms?, J. Geophys. Res., 2007, vol. 110. doi 10.1029/2004JA010799Google Scholar
- 5.Smart, D.F., Garrett, N.B., and Shea, M.A., The prediction of AE, ap, Dst at time lags between 0 and 30 hours, Sol.-Terr. Predict. Proc., 1980, vol. 2, pp. 399–414.Google Scholar
- 10.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.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.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
- 28.Yermolaev, Y.I., Nikolaeva, N.S., Lodkina, I.G., and Yermolaev, M.Y., Specific interplanetary conditions for CIR-, Sheath-, and ICME-induced geomagnetic storms obtained by double superposed epoch analysis, Ann. Geophys., 2010, vol. 28, pp. 2177–2186. doi 10.5194/angeo-28-2177-2010ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Nikolaeva, N.S., Yermolaev, Yu.I., and Lodkina, I.G., Dependence of geomagnetic activity during magnetic storms on the solar wind parameters for different types of streams, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.), 2011, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 49–65.Google Scholar
- 34.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
- 38.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, vol. 292, no. 12, id 193. doi 10.1007/s11207-017-1205-1Google Scholar