Solar wind drivers of geomagnetic storms during more than four solar cycles

Using a classification of the near-Earth solar wind into three basic flow types: (1) High-speed streams associated with coronal holes at the Sun; (2) Slow, interstream solar wind; and (3) Transient flows originating with coronal mass ejections (CMEs) at the Sun, including interplanetary CMEs and the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of space weather and space climate 2012-01, Vol.2, p.A01
Main Authors: Richardson, Ian G., Cane, Hilary V.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Automation
Classification
Coronal holes
Coronal mass ejection
Geomagnetic storms
Geomagnetism
Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection (CME)
KP index
Low level
Magnetic fields
Magnetic storms
NOAA
Solar corona
Solar cycle
Solar cycles
Solar wind
Space weather
Storm
Storms
Stream
Sun
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Using a classification of the near-Earth solar wind into three basic flow types: (1) High-speed streams associated with coronal holes at the Sun; (2) Slow, interstream solar wind; and (3) Transient flows originating with coronal mass ejections (CMEs) at the Sun, including interplanetary CMEs and the associated upstream shocks and post-shock regions, we determine the drivers of geomagnetic storms of various size ranges based on the Kp index and the NOAA “G” criteria since 1964, close to the beginning of the space era, to 2011, encompassing more than four solar cycles (20–23). We also briefly discuss the occurrence of storms since the beginning of the Kp index in 1932, in the minimum before cycle 17. We note that the extended low level of storm activity during the minimum following cycle 23 is without precedent in this 80-year interval. Furthermore, the “typical” numbers of storm days/cycle quoted in the standard NOAA G storm table appear to be significantly higher than those obtained from our analysis, except for the strongest (G5) storms, suggesting that they should be revised downward.
ISSN:2115-7251
2115-7251
DOI:10.1051/swsc/2012001