scholarly journals Study of Geomagnetic Storms, Interplanetary Magnetic Field and Solar Wind

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandrasekhar Bhoj ◽  
Lalan Prasad

The aim of this paper is to investigate the association of the geomagnetic storms with the IMF for solar cycle 24. Result of the present analysis shows that IMF is geoeffective parameter but its impact varies in accordance with different time periods. The correlation coefficient between Dst and IMF found to be -0.6 for solar cycle 24.

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandrasekhar Bhoj ◽  
Lalan Prasad

The aim of this paper is to investigate the association of the geomagnetic storms with the IMF for solar cycle 24. Result of the present analysis shows that IMF is geoeffective parameter but its impact varies in accordance with different time periods. The correlation coefficient between Dst and IMF found to be -0.6 for solar cycle 24


Urgency. The atmosphere and geospace are widely used as a radio channel in solving problems of radar, radio navigation, direction finding, radio communication, radio astronomy, and the remote sensing of the Earth from space or the near-earth environment from the surface of the planet. The parameters of the atmospheric-space radio channel are determined by the state of tropospheric and space weather, which is formed mainly by non-stationary processes on the Sun (solar storms) and partly by high-energy processes on the Earth and in the atmosphere. Geospace storms give rise to the strongest disturbances of the atmospheric-space radio channel, and it is important to note that these storms are diverse, so that no two storms are alike. At the same time, storms have both similar and individual features. Currently, there is insufficient knowledge about both of these features, and their study remains an urgent task of space geophysics and space radio physics. In particular, the identification of general patterns is advisable by performing a statistical analysis of a large number of storms. The aim of this work is to statistically analyze the parameters of the solar wind and geomagnetic field during the Solar Cycle 24 activity (2009–2020). Methods and Methodology. The parameters of the disturbed solar wind (number density nsw, velocity Vsw, and temperature Tsw), the disturbed values of the By- and Bz-components of the interplanetary magnetic field, which is the cause of magnetic storms on Earth, as well as the indices of geomagnetic activity (AE, Dst and Kp) are selected as source input to the study. In this paper, geomagnetic storms with Kр ≥ 5 or G1, G2, G3, and G4 geomagnetic storms are considered. In total, there were 153 storms with Kp ≥ 5. The time series of the nsw, Vsw, Tsw maximum values, of the By- and Bz-components, and of the AE, Dst and Kp indices, as well as of the Bz-component and the Dst index minimum values have been analyzed. Results. The main statistical characteristics of the parameters of the solar wind, interplanetary magnetic field, and of the geomagnetic field have been determined for 153 events that took place during Solar Cycle 24. Conclusions. The geomagnetic situation during Solar Cycle 24 was calmer than during Solar Cycle 23.


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. 419-425
Author(s):  
Chandni Mathpal ◽  
Lalan Prasad ◽  
Meena Pokharia ◽  
Chandrasekhar Bhoj ◽  
Rajesh Mathpal ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 1234 ◽  
pp. 012004
Author(s):  
Doha Al-Feadh ◽  
Wathiq Al-Ramdhan

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Yoshida ◽  
H. Yamagishi

Abstract. It is shown that the monthly smoothed sunspot number (SSN) or its rate of decrease during the final years of a solar cycle is correlated with the amplitude of the succeeding cycle. Based on this relationship, the amplitude of solar cycle 24 is predicted to be 84.5±23.9, assuming that the monthly smoothed SSN reached its minimum in December 2008. It is further shown that the monthly SSN in the three-year period from 2006 through 2008 is well correlated with the monthly average of the intensity of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). This correlation indicates that the SSN in the final years of a solar cycle is a good proxy for the IMF, which is understood to reflect the magnetic field in the corona of the sun, and the IMF is expected to be smallest at the solar minimum. We believe that this finding illuminates a physical meaning underlying the well-known precursor method for forecasting the amplitude of the next solar cycle using the aa index at the solar minimum or its average value in the decaying phase of the solar cycle (e.g. Ohl, 1966), since it is known that the geomagnetic disturbance depends strongly on the intensity of the IMF. That is, the old empirical method is considered to be based on the fact that the intensity of the coronal magnetic field decreases in the late phase of a solar cycle in parallel with the SSN. It seems that the precursor method proposed by Schatten et al. (1978) and Svalgaard et al. (2005), which uses the intensity of the polar magnetic field of the sun several years before a solar minimum, is also based on the same physical phenomenon, but seen from a different angle.


2019 ◽  
Vol 884 (2) ◽  
pp. 102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qing Chang ◽  
Xiaojun Xu ◽  
Qi Xu ◽  
Jun Zhong ◽  
Jiaying Xu ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (S335) ◽  
pp. 65-68
Author(s):  
Nandita Srivastava ◽  
Zavkiddin Mirtoshev ◽  
Wageesh Mishra

AbstractWe have studied the consequences of interacting coronal mass ejections (CMEs) of June 13-14, 2012 which were directed towards Earth and caused a moderate geomagnetic storm with Dst index ~ −86 nT. We analysed the in-situ observations of the solar wind plasma and magnetic field parameters obtained from the OMNI database for these CMEs. The in-situ observations show that the interacting CMEs arrive at Earth with the strongest (~ 150 nT) Sudden Storm Commencement (SSC) of the solar cycle 24. We compared these interacting CMEs to a similar interaction event which occurred during November 9-10, 2012. This occurred in the same phase of the solar cycle 24 but resulted in an intense geomagnetic storm (Dst ~ −108 nT), as reported by Mishra et al. (2015). Our analysis shows that in the June event, the interaction led to a merged structure at 1 AU while in the case of November 2012 event, the interacted CMEs arrived as two distinct structures at 1 AU. The geomagnetic signatures of the two cases reveal that both resulted in a single step geomagnetic storm.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document