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.

Highlights

  • 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)

  • 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 solar wind (SW) phenomena: (1) SW/ejecta/SW, (2) SW/sheath/ejecta/SW, (3) SW/interplanetary shock (IS)/sheath/ejecta/SW, (4) SW/MC/SW, (5) SW/sheath/MC/SW, (6) SW/IS/sheath/ MC/SW, (7) SW/corotating interaction regions (CIRs)/SW, and (8) SW/IS/CIR/SW 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 interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs)

  • These results agree well with those previously published for the shorter time interval 1976–2000.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

Read more

Summary

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 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 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)). 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

Data and Methods
Results
Discussion and Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call