Specific interplanetary conditions for CIR-, Sheath-, and ICME-induced geomagnetic storms obtained by double superposed epoch analysis

The comparison of specific interplanetary conditions for 798 magnetic storms with Dst < -50 nT for the period 1976-2000 was made on the basis of the OMNI archive data.We categorized various large-scale types of solar wind as interplanetary drivers of storms: corotating interaction region (CIR), Sheath, interplanetary CME (ICME) including magnetic cloud (MC) and Ejecta, separately MC and Ejecta, and "Indeterminate" type. The data processing was carried out by the method of double superposed epoch analysis which uses two reference times (onset of storm and the minimum Dst index) and make a re-scaling of main phase of storm a such way that after this transformation all storms have equal durations of main phase in new time reference frame. This method reproduced some well-known results and allowed us to obtain some new results. Specifically, obtained results demonstrate high importance of Sheath in generation of magnetic storms as well as a significant differences in properties of MC and Ejecta and in their geoeffectiveness.Comment: 21 pages, 9 figures, 1 table, submitted to J. of Advances in Space Research on 29 July, 2009 for Special Issue "Space Weather Advances

Geomagnetic storm dependence on the solar flare class

Content. Solar flares are often used as precursors of geomagnetic storms. In particular, Howard and Tappin (2005) recently published in A&A a dependence between X-ray class of solar flares and Ap and Dst indexes of geomagnetic storms which contradicts to early published results. Aims. We compare published results on flare-storm dependences and discuss possible sources of the discrepancy. Methods. We analyze following sources of difference: (1) different intervals of observations, (2) different statistics and (3) different methods of event identification and comparison. Results. Our analysis shows that magnitude of geomagnetic storms is likely to be independent on X-ray class of solar flares.Comment: 3 pages, 1 tabl

Comment on "Geoeffectiveness of halo coronal mass ejections" by N. Gopalswamy, S. Yashiro, and S. Akiyama

Comment on paper: Gopalswamy, N., S. Yashiro, and S. Akiyama (2007), Geoeffectiveness of halo coronal mass ejections, J. Geophys. Res., 112, A06112, doi:10.1029/2006JA012149 Gopalswamy et al. [2007] studied the geoeffectiveness of halo coronal mass ejections (CMEs) on the basis of solar observations during 1996-2005 and found that the geoeffectiveness of 229 frontside halo CMEs was 71%. Recently for observations of 305 frontside halo CMEs during 1997-2003 the geoeffectiveness was found to be 40% [Kim et al., 2005]. Complex analysis of both solar and interplanetary measurements showed that the geoeffectiveness of frontside halo CMEs is likely to be about 50% [Yermolaev et al., 2005; Yermolaev and Yermolaev, 2006]. Gopalswamy et al. [2007] did not discuss possible causes of this difference and were limited only to the general words: "The reason for the conflicting results (geoeffectiveness of CMEs ranging from 35% to more than 80%) may be attributed to the different definition of halo CMEs and geoeffectiveness." So, here we shall present our point of view on high geoeffectivenees of CME obtained in paper by Gopalswamy et al. [2007]