Next Article in Journal
Scaling Properties of Galaxy Groups
Previous Article in Journal
Recent Observations of Gravitational Waves by LIGO and Virgo Detectors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Universe
Volume 7
Issue 5
10.3390/universe7050138
universe-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

What Solar–Terrestrial Link Researchers Should Know about Interplanetary Drivers

by
Yuri I. Yermolaev
1,*,
Irina G. Lodkina
1,
Lidia A. Dremukhina
2,
Michael Y. Yermolaev
1 and
Alexander A. Khokhlachev
1
1
Space Research Institute (IKI RAN), 117997 Moscow, Russia
2
Pushkov Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere, and Radio Wave Propagation (IZMIRAN), Troitsk, 108840 Moscow, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Universe 2021, 7(5), 138; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/universe7050138
Submission received: 31 March 2021 / Revised: 28 April 2021 / Accepted: 5 May 2021 / Published: 10 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Solar System)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
One of the most promising methods of research in solar–terrestrial physics is the comparison of the responses of the magnetosphere–ionosphere–atmosphere system to various types of interplanetary disturbances (so-called “interplanetary drivers”). Numerous studies have shown that different types of drivers result in different reactions of the system for identical variations in the interplanetary magnetic field. In particular, the sheaths—compression regions before fast interplanetary CMEs (ICMEs)—have higher efficiency in terms of the generation of magnetic storms than ICMEs. The growing popularity of this method of research is accompanied by the growth of incorrect methodological approaches in such studies. These errors can be divided into four main classes: (i) using incorrect data with the identification of driver types published in other studies; (ii) using incorrect methods to identify the types of drivers and, as a result, misclassify the causes of magnetospheric-ionospheric disturbances; (iii) ignoring a frequent case with a complex, composite, nature of the driver (the presence of a sequence of several simple drivers) and matching the system response with only one of the drivers; for example, a magnetic storm is often generated by a sheath in front of ICME, although the authors consider these events to be a so-called “CME-induced” storm, rather than a “sheath-induced” storm; (iv) ignoring the compression regions before the fast CME in the case when there is no interplanetary shock (IS) in front of the compression region (“sheath without IS” or the so-called “lost driver”), although this type of driver generates about 10% of moderate and large magnetic storms. Possible ways of solving this problem are discussed.

1. Introduction

Pioneering studies in the 1960s and 1970s [1,2,3,4,5] showed that disturbances in the magnetosphere are mainly associated with the appearance of the southward (Bz < 0) component of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). The IMF lies in the ecliptic plane under steady interplanetary conditions, and a substantial Bz < 0 component is observed only in disturbed types of solar wind (SW), such as corotating interaction regions (CIRs) between slow and fast SW streams, interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs), and sheath compression regions in front of fast ICMEs (see the reviews by [6,7,8]). All drivers have increased IMF; the compression regions (CIR and sheath) have higher values of density, temperature, and β-parameter (the ratio of thermal pressure to magnetic pressure) than undisturbed SW, and the ICME has lower values of these parameters than SW. Magnetic clouds are often distinguished from ICME, which have a higher and more regular IMF than another subclass of ICME, ejecta. Many studies have shown different magnetospheric responses to various types SW, even for close values of IMF Bz (see, e.g., [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39] and references therein). This approach seems very promising, since it allows for the discovery of new physical connections in solar–terrestrial physics. There is currently a steady upward trend in the number of studies in which some physical processes in the magnetosphere, ionosphere, and atmosphere are compared with some specific types of SW. However, the results of such studies are often questioned on the basis of inappropriate methodological approaches, small event sample sizes, and absence of statistical significance tests. The main reason for this is that most researchers on the solar–terrestrial link are not specialists in SW phenomena and make mistakes in identifying interplanetary drivers, often leading to incorrect conclusions. The most common errors are associated with the use of incorrect criteria to identify the types of SW, either by the authors of the erroneous work or by the authors of data sources that are used by other researchers. Typical examples of such methodical errors were considered in detail in our previous studies [40,41,42] and are not considered in depth in this article.
In this paper, we consider two other, physical classes of incorrect approaches that lead to erroneous conclusions about the relationship between interplanetary drivers and magnetospheric disturbances. In the first of these approaches, the authors suggest that the disturbance of the magnetosphere–ionosphere system is caused by a “CME-induced” phenomenon and does not take into account the fact that a CME in the solar corona can result in a sequence of two single drivers, a sheath compression region and an ICME (interplanetary CME including ejecta or magnetic cloud (MC)). As has been shown [22,24,25,34,35,36,37], the sheath has higher efficiency in terms of the generation of magnetic storms than an ICME; although magnetic storms are often induced by a sheath, authors tend to consider the ICME to be the cause of disturbance, rather than the sheath. Secondly, the solar wind can contain types of disturbances that we call “lost drivers”. Very often, the compression region sheath before the ICME is not considered by some authors as a driver, if there is no interplanetary shock (IS) in front of the sheath, while this type of driver, “sheath without IS”, can generate moderate and strong magnetic storms with Dst <−50 nT [31].
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the data and methods used, Section 3 presents the results of the measurements and their analyses, and Section 4 discusses and summarizes the results.

2. Data and Methods

Our investigation is based on the 1 h OMNI data of interplanetary plasma and magnetic field measurements and magnetospheric indices (http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov (accessed on 10 January 2021), [43]). Unlike our previous works, this paper contains data for an extended interval of 45 years (1976–2020).
To identify the corresponding large-scale types of SW, we use the threshold criteria for the key parameters of SW and IMF for each 1 h point in the archive (see the paper [44], and the site with web addresses ftp://ftp.iki.rssi.ru/pub/omni/ or http://www.iki.rssi.ru/pub/omni). Our method for the identification of SW types is based on criteria that are similar to those described in many previous papers (see reviews [12,45,46] and references therein); our identification results agree with those of other authors (e.g., [47,48,49,50]; however, unlike in other similar studies which identified only selected types of SW, we use a general set of threshold criteria for all types of SW and carry out an identification for each 1 h point.
To analyze the magnetospheric response to changes in interplanetary conditions, we selected the following disturbed types of SW: two types of ICMEs (MC and ejecta), two types of sheaths (sheath before MC, SHMC, and sheath before ejecta, SHEJ), the corotating interaction region (CIR), and the forward ISs in front of three types of compression region SHMC, SHEJ, and CIR. MC differs from ejecta mainly in its higher and more regular magnetic field. These and other differences are described in more detail in [30,40,51]. As already shown earlier (see, for example, [30]), the difference in the properties of SHMC and SHEJ is small (i.e., their properties depend little on the type of ICME piston—MC or ejecta), but their properties depend on the presence of shock ISs (i.e., they depend on the speed of propagation of ICMEs relative to the preceding quiet solar wind). In this paper, we examine these differences using data spanning a longer time interval than in previous works.
We use the double superposed epoch analysis (DSEA) method with two reference time instants at the ends of the interval [26]. Similar methods were used for analysis of MC profiles in [47,48] and for the statistic study of magnetic storms [52]. In this method, all intervals of a certain type of SW are divided into an equal number of equal subintervals, regardless of the actual duration of each interval, and the parameters are averaged in these subintervals. This procedure allows one to compute the average time profile of any parameter for events with different durations.
We assume that a magnetic storm is generated by a driver if the minimum of the Dst index is fixed in the interval of this driver or within 2 h of its end. A period of 2 h corresponds to the average time delay between the peak in the southward IMF Bz component and the associated Dst peak of an intense magnetic storm [16,53,54].

3. Results

3.1. Distribution of Dst Index in Sheath + ICME Complexes

In our papers [30,40] using the double superposed epoch analysis method, we studied the average behavior of interplanetary and magnetospheric parameters for the eight most common sequences of SW phenomena: (1) SW/ejecta/SW, (2) SW/sheath/ejecta/SW, (3) SW/IS/sheath/ejecta/SW, (4) SW/MC/SW, (5) SW/sheath/MC/SW, (6) SW/IS/sheath/MC/SW, (7) SW/CIR/SW, and (8) SW/IS/CIR/SW (here, SW means undisturbed solar wind) for the period 1976–2000, and we showed that the average temporal profiles of the magnetospheric indices have maxima in the intervals from the last part of the sheath to the beginning part of the ICME. In particular, the panels in the first and third rows of Figure 1 present the average temporal profiles of the measured Dst. These results agree well with those previously published for the shorter time interval 1976–2000 (panels “e” of Figures 3–8 in [30]).These profiles are divided into two parts: (1) the drop in the Dst and Dst* indices that is observed in the sheath and their minima in the first hours of MC and ejecta, and (2) the moderate growth in the Dst and Dst* indices in the MC and the ejecta.
Unlike previous works [30,40], in this article, we present the results of a similar analysis performed over an extended time interval 1976–2020 and show the profiles of individual events in addition to the average ones (see panels in first and third rows of Figure 1). The results are not qualitatively different from previous results; however, doubling the number of events increased the reliability of the results. The time distributions in the sheath and ejecta/MC intervals for (1) the onset of storms with Dst <−50 nT (blue columns) and (2) the Dst minimum (red columns) are shown by panels in the second and fourth rows of Figure 1. It should be noted that the blue and red columns were calculated using five equal time subintervals in sheaths or ejecta/MC, although, in the figure, they are shifted with respect to each other for clarity. These data confirm that a large number of magnetic storms began at the beginning of sheath, and the maximal number of Dst index minima (the maxima of magnetic storms) was recorded in the intervals from the last part of the sheath to the beginning part of the ejecta/MC.

3.2. Temporal Profiles of Parameters in Sheath + ICME Complexes

Table 1 and Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 allow us to compare the sheath characteristics for four variants of the SW phenomena sequences, namely, sheath/ejecta, IS/sheath/ejecta, sheath/MC, and IS/sheath/MC. In contrast to Section 3.1, where all the sheath events were analyzed, here, we analyze only those sheath events that generated magnetic storms with Dst <−50 nT. The table shows the number of sheath events in two sets: the total number of registered events in each of the four identified subspecies, K1, and the number of K2 events from K1 for which complete sets of measurements were recorded, including sheath and ICME intervals. K1 events are used to estimate the occurrence rate of sheath events, and K2 events are used to calculate the average values of the parameters in the table and average time profiles in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5. K2 events are shown in brackets in the table.
The number of sheath phenomena in front of ejecta without IS (439) was slightly higher than the number of phenomena with IS (395), while the number of sheath phenomena in front of the MCs with IS (160) was significantly higher than the number of phenomena without IS (28). As in many similar estimates, the average values for many parameters of Table 1 turned out to be large and close in magnitude to the standard deviations. However, the statistical error (i.e., the standard deviation divided by the square root of the number of measurement points) for some of them turned out to be small, and, in this case, the differences in the average values for different types of sheath can be considered statistically significant [55]. In particular, the data for durations of sheaths with IS before ejecta and MC (third and fifth columns in Table 1) allow one to estimate statistical errors for both types as about 0.5 h and allow suggesting that the mean duration of sheath phenomena in front of the ejecta was longer than for sheath phenomena in front of the MC. The number of magnetic storms generated by the sheath phenomena in front of the ejecta, with and without IS, was almost the same (63 and 59). For the MC phenomena, the difference was higher (25 and 3), but it is necessary to note that this result was obtained with a small number of events with the MC compared with the ejecta.
Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the average time profiles of interplanetary parameters and magnetospheric indices for four SW sequences including sheath phenomena: (1) SW/sheath/ejecta, (2) SW/IS/sheath/ejecta, (3) SW/sheath/MC, and (4) SW/IS/sheath/MC. The figures include the sheath region processed with the method of double superposed epoch analysis (DSEA, points from 6–19) and regions of SW and ICME (including MC or ejecta) processed with the simple method of superposed epoch analysis (SEA, points from 0–5 and from 20–25, respectively). The 10 panels of each figure show the average time profiles of the following parameters:
(a)
the thermal pressure Pt, the ratio of the thermal pressure and magnetic one β, and the relative density of α-particles Na/Np;
(b)
the proton temperature T × 10−5 K, and the ratio of the measured temperature and temperature estimated on the basis of average velocity-temperature relation T/Texp [44,45,46,50];
(c)
the longitude and latitude angles of the bulk velocity vector phi and theta;
(d)
the components of the electric field Ey and the IMF Bz;
(e)
the measured Dst and density corrected Dst* indices (in contrast to Dst, the Dst* index is cleared of the contribution of the current at the magnetopause and is mainly determined by the ring current);
(f)
the dynamic pressure Pd, and the magnitude of the IMF B;
(g)
the components of the IMF Bx and IMF By;
(h)
the Alfvenic Va and sound Vs speeds;
(i)
the ion density N and Kp index;
(j)
the proton bulk velocity V, and the AE index.
For “sheath with IS” events followed by ejecta, the values of parameters such as the thermal and dynamic pressure Pt and Pd, the magnitude of the magnetic field B, the proton temperature T and T/Texp, the bulk plasma velocity V, and the Dst and Dst* indices are larger than for the “sheath without IS” events (Figure 2 and Figure 3). This behavior of parameters is connected with a sharper increase in these parameters if the sheath region begins with IS. After a period of 2–3 h after the start of the sheath region, these parameters change in a similar way. The situation is similar for the “sheath with IS” and “sheath without IS” events followed by MC (Figure 4 and Figure 5). For sheath events with subsequent MC, the values of the parameters Pt, Pd, B, T, T/Texp, V, Dst, and Dst* are higher than when there is a subsequent ejecta event.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

In this work, we presented the distribution of parameters and Dst and Dst* indices for complex interplanetary drivers including sheath and ICME during the period 1976–2020, and we summarized the incorrect approaches most frequently used by authors when associating magnetosphere–ionosphere–atmosphere disturbances with various interplanetary drivers. The most common mistake is the misidentification of the interplanetary drivers for this association; although we did not consider this type of error in detail in this paper, it must be emphasised that this is responsible for the highest number of papers with incorrect conclusions. There are two main reasons for this: the authors use incorrect criteria to identify types of drivers or use sources with incorrect driver identification (in particular, previously published articles). An analysis of works containing this type of error shows that some articles may turn out to be “toxic”, i.e., they serve as a source of error for several further articles that use the incorrect driver identification in these publications as source data in their analysis [40,41,42]. To reduce the number of errors of this kind, we believe it is necessary to impose more stringent requirements when reviewing articles that use data on the identification of interplanetary drivers.
The authors of many works studied so-called “CME-induced” storms (or other types of magnetospheric disturbance) as a special type of storm. In our opinion, there are no CME-induced disturbances, although there are sheath-induced and MC/ejecta-induced disturbances, as well as multistep disturbances, which are excited by a sequence of sheath/MC or sheath/ejecta events. The data presented here confirm that these “CME-induced” disturbances of the magnetosphere are in fact responses to completely different interplanetary drivers or the successive impact of different drivers [40]. The sheath and ICME (including MC and ejecta) have different physical origins and different properties, and they may have different mechanisms for generating disturbances in the inner parts of the magnetosphere.
Compression regions in front of the ICME are often not considered as sheath, if they do not have IS in the beginning of region, and they are not analyzed as the cause of the disturbance of the magnetosphere–ionosphere–atmospheric system. The “sheath without shock” region, which is recorded in front of an ICME almost as often as a sheath region with IS, is quite geoeffective and is the source of about 10% of moderate and large storms with Dst <−50 nT [31].
Several experimental facts should be mentioned. Firstly, the sheath events have an average value of IMF B higher than that of ejecta and an average value close to that of MC events [30]. Secondly, sheath events have a magnetic storm generation efficiency ~50% higher than that for ICME (including MCs and ejecta) [22,25,27,34,35,36]; that is, with the same IMF southward components, sheath events generate magnetic storms ~1.5 times stronger than ICME. Therefore, we can conclude that the approach, where the contribution of sheath compression regions (including the lost driver of “sheath without shock”) to the generation of storms is not taken into account, is incorrect, and the sheath role is often underestimated. This erroneous approach often results in incorrect conclusions being drawn when studying solar–terrestrial links.
We would like to point out that the general paradigm has changed in recent years, and more and more researchers are using more detailed information to study the impact of interplanetary drivers on the inner regions of the Earth’s magnetosphere. We hope that our article will draw the attention of the scientific community to the serious problem of the significant increase in the number of publications with incorrect identification of interplanetary drivers of magnetospheric–ionospheric–atmospheric disturbances. These publications contain incorrect conclusions and discredit the progressive approach to the study of solar–terrestrial relations. We believe that one of the possible ways to solve this problem could be the creation of an agreed catalog of interplanetary drivers by an international group of experts and the use of this catalog in problems of solar–terrestrial physics.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.I.Y.; data curation, I.G.L.; formal analysis, I.G.L. and A.A.K.; investigation, L.A.D. and M.Y.Y.; methodology, Y.I.Y. and I.G.L.; software, I.G.L. and A.A.K.; visualization, I.G.L. and M.Y.Y.; writing—original draft, Y.I.Y. and L.A.D.; writing—review and editing, Y.I.Y., I.G.L., and M.Y.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Russian Foundation of Basic Research, grant number 19-02-00177a.

Data Availability Statement

The authors are grateful to the developers of the OMNI database (http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov (accessed on 10 January 2021)). Data on the identification of large-scale types of solar wind for 1976–2020 are available from the site of the Space Research Institute, Moscow, Russia, with web addresses ftp://ftp.iki.rssi.ru/pub/omni/ or http://www.iki.rssi.ru/pub/omni (accessed on 10 January 2021).

Acknowledgments

Yuri Yermolaev thanks SCOSTEP’s “Variability of the Sun and Its Terrestrial Impact” (VarSITI) program for supporting his participation in the Closing Symposium, 10–14 June 2019, Sofia, Bulgaria.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dungey, J.W. Interplanetary Magnetic Field and the Auroral Zones. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1961, 6, 47–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fairfield, D.H.; Cahill, L.J. The transition region magnetic field and polar magnetic disturbances. J. Geophys. Res. 1966, 71, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rostoker, G.; Falthammar, C.-G. Relationship between changes in the interplanetary magnetic field and variations in the magnetic field at the Earth’s surface. J. Geophys. Res. 1967, 72, 5853–5863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Russell, C.T.; McPherron, R.L.; Burton, R.K. On the cause of magnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 1974, 79, 1105–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Burton, R.K.; McPherron, R.L.; Russell, C.T. An empirical relationship between interplanetary conditions and Dst. J. Geophys. Res. 1975, 80, 4204–4214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tsurutani, B.T.; Gonzalez, W.D. The interplanetary Causes of Magnetic Storms: A Review. In Magnetic Storms; Mon, S., Tsurutani, B.T., Gonzalez, W.D., Kamide, Y., Eds.; American Geophysical Union Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; Volume 98, p. 77. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gonzalez, W.D.; Tsurutani, B.T.; Clua de Gonzalez, A.L. Interplanetary origion of geomagnetic storms. Space Sci. Rev. 1999, 88, 529–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yermolaev, Y.I.; Yermolaev, M.Y.; Zastenker, G.N.; Zelenyi, L.M.; Petrukovich, A.A.; Sauvaud, J.A. Statistical studies of geomagnetic storm dependencies on solar and interplanetary events: A review. Planet. Space Sci. 2005, 53, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Eselevich, V.G.; Fainshtein, V.G. An investigation of the relationship between the magnetic storm Dst indexes and different types of solar wind streams. Ann. Geophys. 1993, 11, 678–684. [Google Scholar]
  10. Huttunen, K.E.J.; Koskinen, H.E.J.; Schwenn, R. Variability of magnetospheric storms driven by different solar wind perturbations. J. Geophys. Res. 2002, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Huttunen, K.E.J.; Koskinen, H.E.J.; Karinen, A.; Mursula, K. Asymmetric development of magnetospheric storms during magnetic clouds and sheath regions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33, L06107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Tsurutani, B.T.; Gonzalez, W.D.; Gonzalez, A.L.C.; Guarnieri, F.L.; Gopalswamy, N.; Grande, M.; Kamide, Y.; Kasahara, Y.; Lu, G.; Mann, I.; et al. Corotating solar wind streams and recurrent geomagnetic activity: A review. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 2006, 111, A07S01. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Huttunen, K.E.J.; Koskinen, H.E.J. Importance of post-shock streams and sheath region as drivers of intense magnetospheric storms and high-latitude activity. Ann. Geophys. 2004, 22, 1729–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Borovsky, J.E.; Denton, M.H. Differences between CME-driven storms and CIR-driven storms. J. Geophys. Res. 2006, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Pulkkinen, T.I.; Partamies, N.; Huttunen, K.E.J.; Reeves, G.D.; Koskinen, H.E.J. Differences in geomagnetic storms driven by magnetic clouds and ICME sheath regions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2007, 34, L02105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kilpua, E.K.J.; Hietala, H.; Turner, D.L.; Koskinen, H.E.J.; Pulkkinen, T.I.; Rodriguez, J.V.; Reeves, G.D.; Claudepierre, S.G.; Spence, H.E. Unraveling the drivers of the storm time radiation belt response. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2015, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Plotnikov, I.; Barkova, E. Nonlinear dependence of Dst and AE indices on the electric field of magnetic clouds. Adv. Space Res. 2007, 40, 1858–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yermolaev, Y.I.; Yermolaev, M.Y. Comment on “Interplanetary origin of intense geomagnetic storms (Dst <−100 nT) during solar cycle 23” by W. D. Gonzalez et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2008, 35, L01101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Longden, N.; Denton, M.H.; Honary, F. Particle precipitation during ICME-driven and CIR-driven geomagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 2008, 113, 06205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Turner, N.E.; Cramer, W.D.; Earles, S.K.; Emery, B.A. Geoefficiency and energy partitioning in CIR-driven and CME-driven storms. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys. 2009, 71, 1023–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Guo, J.; Feng, X.; Emery, B.A.; Zhang, J.; Xiang, C.; Shen, F.; Song, W. Energy transfer during intense geomagnetic storms driven by interplanetary coronal mass ejections and their sheath regions. J. Geophys. Res. 2011, 116, A05106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Nikolaeva, N.S.; Yermolaev, Y.I.; Lodkina, I.G. Modeling the time behavior of the Dst index during the main phase of magnetic storms generated by various types of solar wind. Cosmic Res. 2013, 51, 401–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nikolaeva, N.S.; Yermolaev, Y.I.; 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, 54, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nikolaeva, N.; Yermolaev, Y.; Lodkina, I. Predicted dependence of the cross po-lar cap potential saturation on the type of solar wind stream. Adv. Space Res. 2015, 56, 1366–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Nikolaeva, N.S.; Yermolaev, Y.I.; Lodkina, I.G. Modeling of the corrected Dst* index temporal profile on the main phase of the magnetic storms generated by different types of solar wind. Cosm. Res. 2015, 53, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yermolaev, Y.I.; Nikolaeva, N.S.; Lodkina, I.G.; Yermolaev, M.Y. Relative occurrence rate and geoeffectiveness of large-scale types of the solar wind. Cosm. Res. 2010, 48, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yermolaev, Y.I.; Nikolaeva, N.S.; Lodkina, I.G.; Yermolaev, M.Y. Specific interplanetary conditions for CIR-induced, Sheath-induced, and ICME-induced geomagnetic storms obtained by double superposed epoch analysis. Ann. Geophys. 2010, 28, 2177–2186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Yermolaev, Y.I.; Nikolaeva, N.S.; Lodkina, I.G.; Yermolaev, M.Y. Geoeffectiveness and efficiency of CIR, sheath, and ICME in generation of magnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 2012, 117, A00L007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Yermolaev, Y.I.; Lodkina, I.G.; Nikolaeva, N.S.; 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, 119, 8126–8136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Yermolaev, Y.I.; Lodkina, I.G.; Nikolaeva, N.S.; Yermolaev, M.Y. Dynamics of large-scale solar wind streams obtained by the double superposed epoch analysis. J. Geophys. Res. 2015, 120, 7094–7106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Yermolaev, Y.I.; Lodkina, I.G.; Yermolaev, M.Y.; Riazantseva, M.O.; Khokhlachev, A.A. Some Problems of Identifying Types of Large-Scale Solar Wind and Their Role in the Physics of the Magnetosphere: 4. The “Lost Driver”. Cosm. Res. 2020, 58, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Borovsky, J.E.; Cayton, T.E.; Denton, M.H.; Belian, R.D.; Christensen, R.A.; Ingraham, J.C. The proton and electron radiation belts at geosynchronous orbit: Statistics and behavior during high-speed stream-driven storms. J. Geophys. Res. 2016, 121, 5449–5488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Lockwood, M.; Owens, M.J.; Barnard, L.A.; Bentley, S.; Scott, C.J.; Watt, C.E. On the origins and timescales of geoeffective IMF. Space Weather 2016, 14, 406–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dremukhina, L.A.; Lodkina, I.G.; Yermolaev, Y.I. Statistical Study of the Effect of Different Solar Wind Types on Magnetic Storm Generation During 1995–2016. Geomagn. Aeron. 2018, 58, 737–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dremukhina, L.A.; Lodkina, I.G.; Yermolaev, Y.I. Relationship between the Parameters of Various Solar Wind Types and Geomagnetic Activity Indices. Cosm. Res. 2018, 56, 426–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dremukhina, L.A.; Yermolaev, Y.I.; Lodkina, I.G. Dynamics of Interplanetary Parameters and Geomagnetic Indices during Magnetic Storms Induced by Different Types of Solar Wind. Geomagn. Aeron. 2019, 59, 639–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dremukhina, L.A.; Yermolaev, Y.I.; Lodkina, I.G. Differences in the Dynamics of the Asymmetrical Part of the Magnetic Disturbance during the Periods of Magnetic Storms Induced by Different Interplanetary Sources. Geomagn. Aeron. 2020, 60, 714–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Boroyev, R.; Vasiliev, M. Substorm activity during the main phase of magnetic storms induced by the CIR and ICME events. Adv. Space Res. 2018, 61, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Despirak, I.V.; Lyubchich, A.A.; Kleimenova, N.G. Solar Wind Streams of Different Types and High-Latitude Substorms. Geomagn. Aeron. 2019, 59, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yermolaev, Y.I.; Lodkina, I.G.; Nikolaeva, N.S.; Yermolaev, M.Y.; Riazantseva, M.O. Some problems of identifying types of large-scale solar wind and their role in the physics of the magnetosphere. Cosm. Res. 2017, 55, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lodkina, I.G.; Yermolaev, Y.I.; Yermolaev, M.Y.; Riazantseva, M.O. Some Problems of Identifying Types of Large-Scale Solar Wind and Their Role in the Physics of the Magnetosphere: 2. Cosm. Res. 2018, 56, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lodkina, I.G.; Yermolaev, Y.I.; Yermolaev, M.Y.; Riazantseva, M.O.; Khokhlachev, A.A. Some Problems of Identifying Types of Large-Scale Solar Wind and Their Role in the Physics of the Magnetosphere: 3. Use of published incorrect data. Cosm. Res. 2020, 58, 377–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. King, J.H. Solar wind spatial scales in and comparisons of hourly Wind and ACE plasma and magnetic field data. J. Geophys. Res. 2005, 110, A02209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yermolaev, Y.I.; Nikolaeva, N.S.; Lodkina, I.G.; Yermolaev, M.Y. Catalog of large-scale solar wind phenomena during 1976–2000. Cosm. Res. 2009, 47, 81–94, (Transl. in Kosm. Issled. 2009, 47, 99–113). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zurbuchen, T.H.; Richardson, I.G. In-situ solar wind and magnetic field signa-tures of interplanetary coronal mass ejections. Space Sci. Rev. 2006, 123, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wimmer-Schweingruber, R.F.; Crooker, N.U.; Balogh, A.; Bothmer, V.; Forsyth, R.J.; Gazis, P.; Gosling, J.T.; Horbury, T.; Kilchenmann, A.; Richardson, I.G.; et al. Understanding interplanetary coronal mass ejec-tion signatures. Space Sci. Rev. 2006, 123, 177–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lepping, R.; Berdichevsky, D.; Szabó, A.; Arqueros, C.; Lazarus, A. Profile of an Average Magnetic Cloud at 1 au for the Quiet Solar Phase: Wind Observations. Sol. Phys. 2003, 212, 425–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lepping, R.P.; Berdichevsky, D.B.; Wu, C.-C. Average Magnetic Field Magnitude Profiles of Wind Magnetic Clouds as a Function of Closest Approach to the Clouds’ Axes and Comparison to Model. Sol. Phys. 2017, 292, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jian, L.K.; Russell, C.T.; Luhmann, J.G.; Skoug, R.M.; Steinberg, J.T. Stream Interactions and Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections at 0.72 AU. Sol. Phys. 2008, 249, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Richardson, I.G.; Cane, H.V. Near-earth solar wind flows and related geomagnetic activity during more than four solar cycles (1963–2011). J. Space Weather. Space Clim. 2012, 2, A02. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yermolaev, Y.I.; Lodkina, I.G.; Yermolaev, M.Y.; Riazantseva, M.O.; Rakhmanova, L.S.; Borodkova, N.L.; Shugay, Y.S.; Slemzin, V.A.; Veselovsky, I.S.; Rodkin, D.G. Dynamics of Large-Scale Solar-Wind Streams Obtained by the Double Superposed Epoch Analysis: 4. Helium Abundance. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 2020, 125, e2020JA027878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yokoyama, N.; Kamide, Y. Statistical nature of geomagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 1997, 102, 14215–14222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gonzalez, W.D.; Echer, E. A study on the peak Dst and peak negative Bz relationship during intense geomagnetic storms. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2005, 32, L18103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Yermolaev, Y.I.; Yermolaev, M.Y.; Lodkina, I.G.; Nikolaeva, N.S. Statistical investigation of Heliospheric conditions resulting in magnetic storms: 2. Cosm. Res. 2007, 45, 461–470, (Transl. in Kosm. Issled. 2007, 45, 489–498). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bendat, J.S.; Piersol, A.G. Measurement and Analysis of Random Data; Wiley-Interscience: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
Universe 07 00138 g001 550
Figure 1. The panels in first and third rows show the temporal profiles of Dst index for individual phenomena (black lines) and average profile of Dst index for them (red line) in six different sequences of solar wind phenomena. The panels in the second and fourth rows show the distributions in the sheath or ejecta/MC time intervals, the number of onsets of storms (blue columns), and the number of maxima (Dst index minima) of storms (red columns). Vertical dashed lines indicate (from right to left) (1) the last point of the ejecta/MC intervals, (2) the first point of the ejecta/MC intervals, and (3) (in the presence of a sheath region) the first point of the sheath intervals.
Figure 1. The panels in first and third rows show the temporal profiles of Dst index for individual phenomena (black lines) and average profile of Dst index for them (red line) in six different sequences of solar wind phenomena. The panels in the second and fourth rows show the distributions in the sheath or ejecta/MC time intervals, the number of onsets of storms (blue columns), and the number of maxima (Dst index minima) of storms (red columns). Vertical dashed lines indicate (from right to left) (1) the last point of the ejecta/MC intervals, (2) the first point of the ejecta/MC intervals, and (3) (in the presence of a sheath region) the first point of the sheath intervals.
Universe 07 00138 g001
Universe 07 00138 g002 550
Figure 2. The temporal profiles of the solar wind parameters and magnetospheric indices for the sheath/ejecta sequence obtained using the SEA method (without rescaling) for SW (points from 0–5) and for ejecta (points from 20–25) and using the DSEA method (with rescaling) for sheath (points from 6–19).
Figure 2. The temporal profiles of the solar wind parameters and magnetospheric indices for the sheath/ejecta sequence obtained using the SEA method (without rescaling) for SW (points from 0–5) and for ejecta (points from 20–25) and using the DSEA method (with rescaling) for sheath (points from 6–19).
Universe 07 00138 g002
Universe 07 00138 g003 550
Figure 3. As in Figure 2 for the IS/sheath/ejecta sequence.
Figure 3. As in Figure 2 for the IS/sheath/ejecta sequence.
Universe 07 00138 g003
Universe 07 00138 g004 550
Figure 4. As in Figure 2 for the sheath/MC sequence.
Figure 4. As in Figure 2 for the sheath/MC sequence.
Universe 07 00138 g004
Universe 07 00138 g005 550
Figure 5. As in Figure 2 for the IS/sheath/MC sequence.
Figure 5. As in Figure 2 for the IS/sheath/MC sequence.
Universe 07 00138 g005
Table
Table 1. Mean values and standard deviations of sheath parameters for four SW sequences.
Table 1. Mean values and standard deviations of sheath parameters for four SW sequences.
Sheath/EjectaIS/Sheath/EjectaSheath/MCIS/Sheath/MC
Number of K1 events43939528160
(Number of K2 events)(329)(360)(24)(155)
Duration of events, h14.0 ± 8.816.3 ± 9.513.1 ± 9.812.1 ± 6.1
Number of magnetic storms 5963325
V, km/s439 ± 95459 ± 107432 ± 91491 ± 141
T (105), K1.57 ± 1.351.77 ± 1.731.55 ± 1.522.44 ± 3.63
T/Texp2.07 ± 1.062.0 ± 1.11.99 ± 1.092.08 ± 1.61
N, cm−39.6 ± 6.412.4 ± 9.413.4 ± 8.416.1 ± 11.1
B, nT8.1 ± 3.69.9 ± 4.79.8 ± 5.113.2 ± 7.7
Kp*1029 ± 1533 ± 1532 ± 1642 ± 19
Dst, nT−17 ± 27−19 ± 36−18 ± 27−24 ± 54
Dst*, nT−22 ± 29−28 ± 38−27 ± 27−37 ± 52
AE, nT276 ± 249327 ± 285319 ± 317449 ± 391
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yermolaev, Y.I.; Lodkina, I.G.; Dremukhina, L.A.; Yermolaev, M.Y.; Khokhlachev, A.A. What Solar–Terrestrial Link Researchers Should Know about Interplanetary Drivers. Universe 2021, 7, 138. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/universe7050138

AMA Style

Yermolaev YI, Lodkina IG, Dremukhina LA, Yermolaev MY, Khokhlachev AA. What Solar–Terrestrial Link Researchers Should Know about Interplanetary Drivers. Universe. 2021; 7(5):138. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/universe7050138

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yermolaev, Yuri I., Irina G. Lodkina, Lidia A. Dremukhina, Michael Y. Yermolaev, and Alexander A. Khokhlachev. 2021. "What Solar–Terrestrial Link Researchers Should Know about Interplanetary Drivers" Universe 7, no. 5: 138. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/universe7050138

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop