Solar-Terrestrial Physics

Солнечно-земная физика

2712-9640

122584

10.12737/szf-122202604

gcwvyf

Результаты исследований

Results of current research

Результаты исследований

Statistical study of predictive parameters for geomagnetic storms during solar cycles 23–24

Статистическое исследование прогностических параметров для геомагнитных бурь во время 23-го и 24-го солнечных циклов

Цэгмэд

Баттуулай

Tsegmed

Battuulai

tseg@iag.ac.mn

кандидат физико-математических наук;

candidate of physical and mathematical sciences;

Намуун

Б.

Namuun

Институт астрономии и геофизики АН Монголии Улан-Батор Монголия Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics AS Mongolia Ulaan-Baatar Mongolia

Школа космонавтики и окружающей среды, Бейханский университет Пекин Китайская Народная Республика School of Space and Environment, Beihang University Beijing China

Институт астрономии и геофизики Монгольской академии наук Улан-Батор Монголия Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics, Mongolian Academy of Sciences Ulaanbaatar Mongolia

12 2 38 46 26 08 2025 15 12 2025

https://naukaru.ru/en/nauka/article/122584/view

Работа направлена на исследование корреляции между параметрами солнечной активности и геомагнитной активности во время 23-го и 24-го солнечных циклов. Анализ включает такие переменные, как скорость солнечного ветра VSW, плотность протонов Np, динамическое давление солнечного ветра PSW и компоненты межпланетного магнитного поля Bz и By, а также параметры, характеризующие энергию взаимодействия солнечного ветра с магнитосферой ESW, dφ/dt, ε. Были рассчитаны коэффициенты корреляции и временные задержки между перечисленными параметрами и геомагнитными индексами SYM-H, AE отдельно для бурь, вызванных корональными выбросами массы (КВМ), и возмущений, триггером которых являются коротирующие области взаимодействия (КОВ). Анализ временных задержек ∆t авроральной активности относительно энергетических параметров и Bz-компоненты межпланетного магнитного поля для обоих типов бурь выявил запаздывание от 30 до 60 мин, тогда как для кольцевого тока задержки составили от 6 до 24 ч.

This work focuses on exploring the correlation between solar activity parameters and geomagnetic activity during solar cycles 23 and 24. The analysis includes variables such as solar wind speed VSW, proton density Np, solar wind dynamic pressure PSW, and interplanetary magnetic field components Bz and By, along with energy-related parameters ESW, dφ/dt, ε. Correlation coefficients and time lags were calculated between these solar wind, magnetic field, and energy parameters and geomagnetic indices SYM-H, AE for storms driven by CME and CIR. The analysis of time delays ∆t of auroral activity relative to the energy parameters and the interplanetary magnetic field component Bz for storms of both types has revealed durations ranging from 30 to 60 min, whereas for the ring current the delays ranged from 6 to 24 hrs.

коэффициент корреляции солнечный ветер межпланетное магнитное поле корональный выброс массы область взаимодействия потоков геомагнитная активность

correlation coefficient solar wind interplanetary magnetic field coronal mass ejection corotating interaction region geomagnetic activity

Akasofu S.I. Energy coupling between the solar wind and the magnetosphere. Space Sci. Rev. 1981, vol. 28, pp. 121–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00218810.

Arnoldy R.L. Signature in the interplanetary medium for substorms. J. Geophys. Res. 1971, vol. 76, iss. 22, pp. 5189–5201. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA076i022p05189.

Baumjohann W., Treumann R.A. Basic Space Plasma Physics (Revised edition). 2012, pp. 1–479. https://doi.org/10.1142/P850.

Borovsky J.E., Denton M.H. Differences between CME-driven storms and CIR-driven storms. J. Geophys. Res. 2006, vol. 111, iss. A7. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005ja011447.

Burton R.K., McPherron R.L., Russell C.T. An empirical relationship between interplanetary conditions and Dst. J. Geophys. Res. 1975, vol. 80, iss. 31, pp. 4204–4214. https://doi.org/10.1029/ja080i031p04204.

Case N.A., Grocott A., Haaland S., et al. Response of Earth’s neutral sheet to reversals in the IMF By component. J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 2018, vol. 123, iss. 10, pp. 8206–8218. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025712.

Chen M.W. Chapter 5. Ring current development. Ring Current Investigations. Eds V.K. Jordanova, R. Ilie and M.W. Chen. 2020, Elsevier: 153–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815571-4.00005-6.

Davis T.N., Sugiura M. Auroral electrojet activity index AE and its universal time variations. J. Geophys. Res. 1966, vol. 71, iss. 3, pp. 785–801.

De Souza A.M., Echer E., Bolzan M., Hajra R. Cross-correlation and cross-wavelet analyses of the solar wind IMF Bz and auroral electrojet index AE coupling during HILDCAAs. Ann. Geophys. 2018, vol. 36, iss. 1, pp. 205–211. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-36-205-2018.

10.

Dungey J.W. Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1961, vol. 6, iss. 2, pp. 47–48. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.6.47.

11.

Fuselier S.A., Petrinec S.M., Trattner K.J. Stability of the high-latitude reconnection site for steady northward IMF. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2000, vol. 27, iss. 4, pp. 473–476. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL003706.

12.

Gong F., Yu Y., Cao J. Simulating the responses of the magnetosphere—ionosphere system to the IMF By reversal. Front. Phys. 2022, vol. 10, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2022.900192.

13.

Gonzalez W.D., Joselyn J.A., Kamide Y., et al. What is a geomagnetic storm? J. Geophys. Res. 1994, vol. 99, iss. A4. https://doi.org/10.1029/93ja02867.

14.

Gunell H., Nilsson H., Stenberg Wieser G., et al. Plasma penetration of the dayside magnetopause. Phys. Plasmas. 2012, vol. 19, 072906. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4739446.

15.

Hasegawa H., Fujimoto M., Phan T., et al. Transport of solar wind into Earth’s magnetosphere through rolled-up Kelvin—Helmholtz vortices. Nature. 2004, vol. 430, pp. 755–758. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02799.

16.

Hutchinson J.A., Wright D.M., Milan S.E. Geomagnetic storms over the last solar cycle: A superposed epoch analysis. J. Geophys. Res. Sp. Phys. 2011, vol. 116, iss. 9, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JA016463.

17.

Kamide Y., Kamide Y., Daglis I., et al. Current understanding of magnetic storms: Storm‐substorm relationships J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 1998, vol. 103, iss. A8, pp. 17705–17728. https://doi.org/10.1029/98ja01426.

18.

Kan J.R., Lee L. C. Energy coupling function and solar wind-magnetosphere dynamo. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1979, vol. 6, iss. 7, pp. 577–580. https://doi.org/10.1029/GL006i007p00577.

19.

Kan J.R., Lee L.C., Akasofu S.I. The energy coupling function and the power generated by the solar wind-magnetosphere dynamo. Planetary and Space Sci. 1980, vol. 28, iss. 8, pp. 823–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(80)90080-X.

20.

Kremser G., Lundin R. Average spatial distributions of energetic particles in the midaltitude cusp/cleft region observed by Viking, J. Geophys. Res. 1990, vol. 95, iss. A5, pp. 5753–5766. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA095iA05p05753.

21.

Kullen A., Blomberg L.G. The influence of IMF By on the mapping between the Earth’s magnetotail and its ionosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1996, vol. 23, iss. 18, pp. 2561–2564. https://doi.org/10.1029/96GL02305.

22.

Lethy A., El-Eraki M.A., Samy A., et al. Prediction of the Dst Index and Analysis of Its Dependence on Solar Wind Parameters Using Neural Network Sp. Weather. 2018, vol. 16, iss. 9, pp. 1277–1290. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018SW001863.

23.

Liang J., Donovan E., Nishimura Y., et al. Low-energy ion precipitation structures associated with pulsating auroral patches. J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 2015, vol. 120, pp. 5408–5431. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021094.

24.

Liu J., Burns A.G., Wang W., et al. Modeled IMF By Effects on the polar ionosphere and thermosphere coupling. J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 2020, vol. 125, iss. 3, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA026949.

25.

Maggiolo R., Hamrin M., De Keyser J., et al. The delayed time response of geomagnetic activity to the solar wind. J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 2017, vol. 122, iss. 11. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ja023793.

26.

Meng C.-I., Tsurutani B., Kawasaki K., et al. Cross-correlation analysis of the AE-index and the interplanetary magnetic field Bz component. J. Geophys. Res. 1973, vol. 78, iss. 4, pp. 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1029/ja078i004p00617.

27.

Namuun B., Tsegmed B., Li L.Y., Leghari G.M. Differences in the response to CME and CIR drivers of geomagnetic disturbances. Солнечно-земная физика. 2023, т. 9, №. 2, с. 35–40. https://doi.org/10.12737/szf-92202304 / Namuun B., Tsegmed B., Li L.Y., Leghari G.M. Differences in the response to CME and CIR drivers of geomagnetic disturbances. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2023, vol. 9, iss. 2, pp. 31–36. https://doi.org/10.12737/stp-92202304.

Namuun B., Tsegmed B., Li L.Y., Leghari G.M. Differences in the response to CME and CIR drivers of geomagnetic disturbances. Solnechno-zemnaya fizika. 2023, t. 9, №. 2, s. 35–40. https://doi.org/10.12737/szf-92202304 / Namuun B., Tsegmed B., Li L.Y., Leghari G.M. Differences in the response to CME and CIR drivers of geomagnetic disturbances. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2023, vol. 9, iss. 2, pp. 31–36. https://doi.org/10.12737/stp-92202304.

28.

Newell P.T., Sotirelis T., Liou K., et al. A nearly universal solar wind-magnetosphere coupling function inferred from 10 magnetospheric state variables. J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 2007, vol. 112, iss. 1, p. A01206. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006ja012015.

29.

Ondoh T. Correlation of AE activity with IMF-Bz during small geomagnetic storms. Adv. in Space Res. 2000, vol. 26, iss. 1, pp. 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1177(99)01035-2.

30.

Paschmann G., Sonnerup B., Papamastorakis I., et al. Plasma acceleration at the Earth’s magnetopause: evidence for reconnection. Nature. 1979, vol. 282, pp. 243–246. https://doi.org/10.1038/282243a0.

31.

Perreault P., Akasofu S.-I. A study of geomagnetic storms. Geophys. J. Royal Astron. Soc. 1978, vol. 54, iss. 3, pp. 547–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1978.tb05494.x.

32.

Polozov Y. Analysis of the data of IMF Bz and AE-index for the period 1999–2018. E3S Web of Conferences. 2020, vol. 196. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202019602005.

33.

Potapov A.S. ULF wave activity in high-speed streams of the solar wind: Impact on the magnetosphere, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 2013, vol. 118, pp. 6465–6477. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JA019119.

34.

Richardson I.G., Cane H.V. Particle flows observed in ejecta during solar event onsets and their implication for the magnetic field topology. J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 1996, vol. 101, iss. A12, pp. 27521–27532. https://doi.org/10.1029/96ja02643.

35.

Rostoker G., Fälthammar 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, vol. 72, iss. 23, pp. 5853–5863. https://doi.org/10.1029/jz072i023p05853.

36.

Rout D., Patra S., Kumar S., et al. The growth of ring current/SYM-H under northward IMF Bz conditions present during the 21–22 January 2005 geomagnetic storm. Space Weather. 2023, vol. 21, iss. 10, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003489.

37.

Stepanov N.A., Sergeev V., Sormakov D., et al. Superthermal proton and electron fluxes in the plasma sheet transition region and their dependence on solar wind parameters. J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 2021, vol. 126, iss. 4. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ja028580.

38.

Stumpo M., Consolini G., Alberti T., et al. Measuring information coupling between the solar wind and the magnetosphere-ionosphere system. Entropy. 2020, vol. 22, iss. 3, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22030276.

39.

Sugiura M. Hourly values of equatorial Dst for the IGY. Ann. Int. Geophys. Year. 1963, vol. 35, pp. 9–45.

40.

Tenfjord P., Østgaard N., Snekvik K., et al. How the IMF By induces a By component in the closed magnetosphere and how it leads to asymmetric currents and convection patterns in the two hemispheres. Annals of the International Geophysical Year. 2015, vol. 120, iss. 11, pp. 9368–9384. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021579.

41.

Troshichev O.A., Sormakov D.A. PC index as a proxy of the solar wind energy that entered into the magnetosphere: 4. Relationship between the solar wind dynamic pressure (PSW) impulses and PC, AL indices. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 2019, vol. 182, pp. 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2018.12.001.

42.

Tsurutani B.T., Thorne R.M. Diffusion processes in the magnetopause boundary layer. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1982. https://doi.org/10.1029/GL009i011p01247.

43.

Tsurutani B.T., Gonzalez W.D., Tang F., et al. The interplanetary and solar causes of geomagnetic activity. Planetary and Space Sci. 1990, vol. 38, iss. 1, pp. 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(90)90010-N.

44.

Tsurutani B.T., Gonzalez W.D., Clúa de Gonzalez A.L., et al. Corotating solar wind streams and recurrent geomagnetic activity: A review. J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 2006, vol. 111, iss. 7, pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JA011273.

45.

Tsyganenko N.A., Mukai T. Tail plasma sheet models derived from Geotail particle data. J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 2003, vol. 108, iss. A3, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009707.

46.

Yamada M., Kulsrud R., Ji H. Magnetic reconnection. Rev. Modern Phys. 2010, vol. 82 (1), pp. 603–664. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.82.603.

47.

Yermolaev Y.I., Nikolaeva N.S., Lodkina I.G., et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-28-2177-2010.

48.

URL: https://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov (accessed March 31, 2025).