Log in

Relevant bibliographies by topics / Geoeffectiveness / Journal articles

Journal articles on the topic 'Geoeffectiveness'

To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Geoeffectiveness.

Author: Grafiati

Published: 6 September 2023

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Geoeffectiveness.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

Benacquista, Remi, Sandrine Rochel, and Guy Rolland. "Understanding the variability of magnetic storms caused by ICMEs." Annales Geophysicae 35, no. 1 (January 30, 2017): 147–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/angeo-35-147-2017.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract. In this paper, we study the dynamics of magnetic storms due to interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs). We used multi-epoch superposed epoch analyses (SEAs) with a choice of epoch times based on the structure of the events. By sorting the events with respect to simple large-scale features (presence of a shock, magnetic structure, polarity of magnetic clouds), this method provides an original insight into understanding the variability of magnetic storm dynamics. Our results show the necessity of seeing ICMEs and their preceding sheaths as a whole since each substructure impacts the other and has an effect on its geoeffectiveness. It is shown that the presence of a shock drives the geoeffectiveness of the sheaths, while both the shock and the magnetic structure impact the geoeffectiveness of the ICMEs. In addition, we showed that the ambient solar wind characteristics are not the same for ejecta and magnetic clouds (MCs). The ambient solar wind upstream magnetic clouds are quieter than upstream ejecta and particularly slower. We also focused on the polarity of magnetic clouds since it drives not only their geoeffectiveness but also their temporal dynamics. South–north magnetic clouds (SN-MCs) and north–south magnetic clouds (NS-MCs) show no difference in geoeffectiveness for our sample of events. Lastly, since it is well-known that sequences of events can possibly induce strong magnetic storms, such sequences have been studied using superposed epoch analysis (SEA) for the first time. We found that these sequences of ICMEs are very usual and concern about 40 % of the ICMEs. Furthermore, they cause much more intense magnetic storms than isolated events do.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Liu, Gui-Ang, Ming-Xian Zhao, Gui-Ming Le, and Tian Mao. "What Can We Learn from the Geoeffectiveness of the Magnetic Cloud on 2012 July 15–17?" Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 22, no. 1 (January 1, 2022): 015002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/ac3126.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract An interplanetary shock and a magnetic cloud (MC) reached the Earth on 2012 July 14 and 15 one after another. The shock sheath and the MC triggered an intense geomagnetic storm. We find that only small part of the MC from 06:45 UT to 10:05 UT on 2012 July 15 made contribution to the intense geomagnetic storm, while the rest part of the MC made no contribution to the intense geomagnetic storm. The averaged southward component of interplanetary magnetic field (B s ) and duskward-electric fields (E y ) within the MC from 10:05 UT, 2012 July 15 to 09:08 UT, 2012 July 16 (hereafter MC_2), are 15.11 nT and 8.01 mV m−1, respectively. According to the empirical formula established by Burton et al. (hereafter Burton equation), the geoeffectiveness of MC_2 should be −655.42 nT, while the geoeffectiveness of MC_2 is −324.68 nT according to the empirical formula established by O’Brien & McPherron (hereafter OM equation). However, the real geoeffectiveness of MC_2 is 39.74 nT. The results indicate that the Burton equation and the OM equation cannot work effectively. The geoeffectiveness of MC_2 shows that large and long duration of B s or E y cannot guarantee the occurrence of an intense geomagnetic storm if the solar wind dynamic pressure is very low. If we use 0.52 as γ, the geoeffectiveness of MC_2 is 40.36 nT according to the empirical formula established by Wang et al., which is very close to the observed value, indicating that the empirical formula established by Wang et al. is much better than the Burton equation and the OM equation.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Fu, Huiyuan, Yuchao Zheng, Yudong Ye, Xueshang Feng, Chaoxu Liu, and Huadong Ma. "Joint Geoeffectiveness and Arrival Time Prediction of CMEs by a Unified Deep Learning Framework." Remote Sensing 13, no. 9 (April 30, 2021): 1738. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs13091738.

Full text

Abstract:

Fast and accurate prediction of the geoeffectiveness of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and the arrival time of the geoeffective CMEs is urgent, to reduce the harm caused by CMEs. In this paper, we present a new deep learning framework based on time series of satellites’ optical observations that can give both the geoeffectiveness and the arrival time prediction of the CME events. It is the first time combining these two demands in a unified deep learning framework with no requirement of manually feature selection and get results immediately. The only input of the deep learning framework is the time series images from synchronized solar white-light and EUV observations. Our framework first uses the deep residual network embedded with the attention mechanism to extract feature maps for each observation image, then fuses the feature map of each image by the feature map fusion module and determines the geoeffectiveness of CME events. For the geoeffective CME events, we further predict its arrival time by the deep residual regression network based on group convolution. In order to train and evaluate our proposed framework, we collect 2400 partial-/full-halo CME events and its corresponding images from 1996 to 2018. The F1 score and Accuracy of the geoeffectiveness prediction can reach 0.270% and 75.1%, respectively, and the mean absolute error of the arrival time prediction is only 5.8 h, which are both significantly better than well-known deep learning methods and can be comparable to, or even better than, the best performance of traditional methods.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Mendoza, Blanca, and Román Pérez Enríquez. "Geoeffectiveness of the heliospheric current sheet." Journal of Geophysical Research 100, A5 (1995): 7877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/94ja02867.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Gopalswamy, N., S. Yashiro, and S. Akiyama. "Geoeffectiveness of halo coronal mass ejections." Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 112, A6 (June 2007): n/a. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006ja012149.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Mundra, Kashvi, V. Aparna, and Petrus Martens. "Using CME Progenitors to Assess CME Geoeffectiveness." Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 257, no. 2 (November 12, 2021): 33. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ac3136.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract There have been a few previous studies claiming that the effects of geomagnetic storms strongly depend on the orientation of the magnetic cloud portion of coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Aparna & Martens, using halo-CME data from 2007 to 2017, showed that the magnetic field orientation of filaments at the location where CMEs originate on the Sun can be used to credibly predict the geoeffectiveness of the CMEs being studied. The purpose of this study is to extend their survey by analyzing the halo-CME data for 1996–2006. The correlation of filament axial direction on the solar surface and the corresponding Bz signatures at L1 are used to form a more extensive analysis for the results previously presented by Aparna & Martens. This study utilizes Solar and Heliospheric Observatory Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope 195 Å, Michelson Doppler Imager magnetogram images, and Kanzelhöhe Solar Observatory and Big Bear Solar Observatory Hα images for each particular time period, along with ACE data for interplanetary magnetic field signatures. Utilizing all these, we have found that the trend in Aparna & Martens’ study of a high likelihood of correlation between the axial field direction on the solar surface and Bz orientation persists for the data between 1996 and 2006, for which we find a match percentage of 65%.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Plunkett, S. P., and S. T. Wu. "Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and their geoeffectiveness." IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 28, no. 6 (2000): 1807–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/27.902210.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Chen, James, Peter J. Cargill, and Peter J. Palmadesso. "Predicting solar wind structures and their geoeffectiveness." Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 102, A7 (January 1997): 14701–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/97ja00936.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Huttunen, E. "Geoeffectiveness of CMEs in the Solar Wind." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 2004, IAUS226 (September 2004): 455–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1743921305001031.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Alves, M. V., E. Echer, and W. D. Gonzalez. "Geoeffectiveness of solar wind interplanetary magnetic structures." Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 73, no. 11-12 (July 2011): 1380–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2010.07.024.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Oliveira, D. M., and J. Raeder. "Impact angle control of interplanetary shock geoeffectiveness." Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 119, no. 10 (October 2014): 8188–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014ja020275.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Pricopi, Andreea-Clara, Alin Razvan Paraschiv, Diana Besliu-Ionescu, and Anca-Nicoleta Marginean. "Predicting the Geoeffectiveness of CMEs Using Machine Learning." Astrophysical Journal 934, no. 2 (August 1, 2022): 176. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac7962.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are the most geoeffective space weather phenomena, being associated with large geomagnetic storms, and having the potential to cause disturbances to telecommunications, satellite network disruptions, and power grid damage and failures. Thus, considering these storms’ potential effects on human activities, accurate forecasts of the geoeffectiveness of CMEs are paramount. This work focuses on experimenting with different machine-learning methods trained on white-light coronagraph data sets of close-to-Sun CMEs, to estimate whether such a newly erupting ejection has the potential to induce geomagnetic activity. We developed binary classification models using logistic regression, k-nearest neighbors, support vector machines, feed-forward artificial neural networks, and ensemble models. At this time, we limited our forecast to exclusively use solar onset parameters, to ensure extended warning times. We discuss the main challenges of this task, namely, the extreme imbalance between the number of geoeffective and ineffective events in our data set, along with their numerous similarities and the limited number of available variables. We show that even in such conditions adequate hit rates can be achieved with these models.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Xu, Mengjiao, Chenglong Shen, Yuming Wang, Bingxian Luo, and Yutian Chi. "Importance of Shock Compression in Enhancing ICME’s Geoeffectiveness." Astrophysical Journal 884, no. 2 (October 14, 2019): L30. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab4717.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Siscoe, G., P. J. MacNeice, and D. Odstrcil. "East-west asymmetry in coronal mass ejection geoeffectiveness." Space Weather 5, no. 4 (April 2007): n/a. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006sw000286.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Kim, R. ‐S, K. ‐S Cho, K. ‐H Kim, Y. ‐D Park, Y. ‐J Moon, Y. Yi, J. Lee, H. Wang, H. Song, and M. Dryer. "CME Earthward Direction as an Important Geoeffectiveness Indicator." Astrophysical Journal 677, no. 2 (April 20, 2008): 1378–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/528928.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Michalek, G., N. Gopalswamy, A. Lara, and S. Yashiro. "Properties and geoeffectiveness of halo coronal mass ejections." Space Weather 4, no. 10 (October 2006): n/a. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005sw000218.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Badruddin, Hassan Basurah, and Moncef Derouich. "Study of the geoeffectiveness of interplanetary magnetic clouds." Planetary and Space Science 139 (May 2017): 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2017.03.001.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Prakash, O., A. Shanmugaraju, G. Michalek, and S. Umapathy. "Geoeffectiveness and flare properties of radio-loud CMEs." Astrophysics and Space Science 350, no. 1 (December 11, 2013): 33–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10509-013-1728-3.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

SU, Zhen-Peng, Ming XIONG, Hui-Nan ZHENG, and Shui WANG. "Propagation of Interplanetary Shock and Its Consequent Geoeffectiveness." Chinese Journal of Geophysics 52, no. 2 (March 2009): 292–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjg2.1351.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Sanchez-Garcia, E., E. Aguilar-Rodriguez, V. Ontiveros, and J. A. Gonzalez-Esparza. "Geoeffectiveness of stream interaction regions during 2007-2008." Space Weather 15, no. 8 (August 2017): 1052–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016sw001559.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Degtyarev, Vitalii, Georgy Popov, and Svetlana Chudnenko. "Solar Wind Parameters and Its Geoefficiency During Minimums of Four Solar Cycles." Bulletin of Baikal State University 31, no. 4 (December 28, 2021): 508–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.17150/2500-2759.2021.31(4).508-514.

Full text

Abstract:

Recently a number of publications have appeared on the long and deep minimum in cycle 23 of solar activity. This interest is due to the fact that it turned out to be the longest and deepest in terms of the number of sunspots in the entire era of space exploration. The features of the minimum of cycle 23 of solar activity and the beginning of cycle 24 made it possible to assume that in the coming decades, a minimum of solar activity similar to the Dalton or Maunder minimum, leading to a global change in the earth's climate, may occur. Such assumptions make a detailed study of the influence of the minimum of solar cycle 23 on the parameters of the solar wind and the interplanetary magnetic field, as well as a comparison of this influence with similar manifestations in the three previous cycles very urgent. The work carried out statistical processing and analysis of data available in print and on the Internet on the indices of solar activity (W and F10.7), on geomagnetic activity, as well as on the parameters of the solar wind and interplanetary field. In contrast to other similar studies, when choosing time intervals for all cycles, only one — 12 months was used, which made it possible to exclude annual and semi-annual variations in solar wind parameters. For the considered minima of solar activity, the geoeffectiveness of the disturbed fluxes ICME, CIR, and Sheath was considered. A monotonic and very significant decrease in the geoeffectiveness of the ICME streams was found. Data processing on the hourly average values of the solar wind parameters at the minima of geomagnetic activity for 4 cycles confirmed the significant difference between cycle 23 and the previous ones in the behavior of the magnetic field. The cycle-by-cycle decrease in the geoeffectiveness of coronal ejections discussed in the press deserves a more detailed analysis using extensive data on magnetic activity indices.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Vasanth, V., and S. Umapathy. "A Statistical Study on DH CMEs and Its Geoeffectiveness." ISRN Astronomy and Astrophysics 2013 (December 24, 2013): 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/129426.

Full text

Abstract:

A detailed investigation on geoeffectiveness of CMEs associated with DH-type-II bursts observed during 1997–2008 is presented. The collected sample events are divided into two groups based on their association with CMEs related to geomagnetic storms Dst ≤−50 nT, namely, (i) geoeffective events and (ii) nongeoeffective events. We found that the geoeffective events have high starting frequency, low ending frequency, long duration, wider bandwidth, energetic flares, and CMEs than nongeoeffective events. The geoeffective events are found to have intense geomagnetic storm with mean Dst index (−150 nT). There exists good correlation between the properties of CMEs and flares for geoeffective events, while no clear correlation exists for nongeoeffective events. There exists a weak correlation for geoeffective events between (i) CME speed and Dst index (R=-0.51) and good correlation between (i) CME speed and solar wind speed (R=0.60), (ii) Dst index and solar wind speed (R=-0.64), and (iii) Dst index and southward magnetic field component (Bz) (R=0.80). From our study we conclude that the intense and long duration southward magnetic field component (Bz) and fast solar wind speed are responsible for geomagnetic storms, and the geomagnetic storms weakly depend on CME speed. About 22% (50/230) of the DH-type-II bursts are associated with geomagnetic storms. Therefore the DH-type-II bursts associated with energetic flares and CMEs are good indicator of geomagnetic storms.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Farrugia, C. J., J. D. Scudder, M. P. Freeman, L. Janoo, G. Lu, J. M. Quinn, R. L. Arnoldy, et al. "Geoeffectiveness of three Wind magnetic clouds: A comparative study." Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 103, A8 (August 1, 1998): 17261–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/98ja00886.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Kumar, Santosh, and Amita Raizada. "Geoeffectiveness of magnetic clouds occurred during solar cycle 23." Planetary and Space Science 58, no. 5 (April 2010): 741–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2009.11.009.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Echer, E., M. V. Alves, and W. D. Gonzalez. "A statistical study of magnetic cloud parameters and geoeffectiveness." Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 67, no. 10 (July 2005): 839–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2005.02.010.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Dumbović, M., A. Devos, B. Vršnak, D. Sudar, L. Rodriguez, D. Ruždjak, K. Leer, S. Vennerstrøm, and A. Veronig. "Geoeffectiveness of Coronal Mass Ejections in the SOHO Era." Solar Physics 290, no. 2 (October 21, 2014): 579–612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11207-014-0613-8.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Taliashvili, Lela, Zadig Mouradian, and Jorge Páez. "Dynamic and Thermal Disappearance of Prominences and Their Geoeffectiveness." Solar Physics 258, no. 2 (August 6, 2009): 277–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11207-009-9414-x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Chi, Yutian, Chenglong Shen, Bingxian Luo, Yuming Wang, and Mengjiao Xu. "Geoeffectiveness of Stream Interaction Regions From 1995 to 2016." Space Weather 16, no. 12 (December 2018): 1960–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2018sw001894.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Adebesin, B. Olufemi, S. Oluwole Ikubanni, and J. Stephen Kayode. "On the Geoeffectiveness Structure of Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Coupling Functions during Intense Storms." ISRN Astronomy and Astrophysics 2011 (January 17, 2011): 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2011/961757.

Full text

Abstract:

The geoeffectiveness of some coupling functions for the Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Interaction had been studied. 58 storms with peak Dst < −100 nT were used. The result showed that the interplanetary magnetic field Bz appeared to be more relevant with the magnetic field B (which agreed with previous results). However, both the V (solar wind flow speed) and Bz factors in the interplanetary dawn-dusk electric field (V×Bz) are effective in the generation of very intense storms (peak Dst < −250 nT) while “intense” storms (−250 nT ≤ peak Dst < −100 nT) are mostly enhanced by the Bz factor alone (in most cases). The southward Bz duration BT seems to be more relevant for Dst < −250 nT class of storms and invariably determines the recovery phase duration. Most of the storms were observed to occur at midnight hours (i.e., 2100–0400 UT), having a 41.2% incidence rate, with high frequency between 2300 UT and 0000 UT. 62% of the events were generated as a result of Magnetic Cloud (MC), while 38% were generated by complex ejecta. The B-Bz relation for the magnetic cloud attained a correlation coefficient of 0.8922, while it is 0.7608 for the latter. Conclusively, Bz appears to be the most geoeffective factor, and geoeffectiveness should be a factor that depends on methods of event identification and classification as well as the direction of event correlation.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Kilpua, E. K. J., Y. Li, J. G. Luhmann, L. K. Jian, and C. T. Russell. "On the relationship between magnetic cloud field polarity and geoeffectiveness." Annales Geophysicae 30, no. 7 (July 13, 2012): 1037–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/angeo-30-1037-2012.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract. In this paper, we have investigated geoeffectivity of near-Earth magnetic clouds during two periods concentrated around the last two solar minima. The studied magnetic clouds were categorised according to the behaviour of the Z-component of the interplanetary magnetic field (BZ) into bipolar (BZ changes sign) and unipolar (BZ maintains its sign) clouds. The magnetic structure of bipolar clouds followed the solar cycle rule deduced from observations over three previous solar cycles, except during the early rising phase of cycle 24 when both BZ polarities were identified almost with the same frequency. We found a clear difference in the number of unipolar clouds whose axial field points south (S-type) between our two study periods. In particular, it seems that the lack of S-type unipolar clouds contributed to relatively low geomagnetic activity in the early rising phase of cycle 24. We estimated the level of magnetospheric activity using a Dst prediction formula with the measured BZ and by reversing the sign of BZ. We found that bipolar clouds with fields rotating south-to-north (SN) and north-to-south (NS) were equally geoeffective, but their geoeffectiveness was clearly modified by the ambient solar wind structure. Geoeffectivity of NS-polarity clouds was enhanced when they were followed by a higher-speed solar wind, while the majority of geoeffective SN-polarity clouds lacked the trailing faster wind. A leading shock increased the geoeffectiveness of both NS- and SN-polarity clouds, in particular, in the case of an intense storm. We found that in 1995–1998, SN-polarity clouds were more geoeffective, while in 2006–2011 NS-polarity clouds produced more storms. A considerably larger fraction of events were trailed by a higher-speed solar wind during our latter study period, which presumably increased geoeffectivity of NS-polarity. Thus, our study demonstrates that during low and moderate solar activity, geoeffectivity of opposite polarity bipolar clouds may depend significantly on the surrounding solar wind structure. In addition, different polarities also give different temporal storm evolutions: a storm from an SN-polarity cloud is expected to occur, on average, half-a-day earlier than a storm from an NS-polarity cloud.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Cid, Consuelo, Hebe Cremades, Angels Aran, Cristina Mandrini, Blai Sanahuja, Brigitte Schmieder, Michel Menvielle, et al. "Clarifying some issues on the geoeffectiveness of limb halo CMEs." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 8, S300 (June 2013): 285–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1743921313011101.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractA recent study by Cid et al. (2012) showed that full halo coronal mass ejections (CMEs) coming from the limb can disturb the terrestrial environment. Although this result seems to rise some controversies with the well established theories, the fact is that the study encourages the scientific community to perform careful multidisciplinary analysis along the Sun-to-Earth chain to fully understand which are the solar triggers of terrestrial disturbances. This paper aims to clarify some of the polemical issues arisen by that paper.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Cliver, E. W., and N. U. Crooker. "A seasonal dependence for the geoeffectiveness of eruptive solar events." Solar Physics 145, no. 2 (June 1993): 347–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00690661.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Eselevich, V. G. "Solar flares : geoeffectiveness and the possibility of a new classification." Planetary and Space Science 38, no. 2 (February 1990): 189–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(90)90083-3.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Oliveira, D. M., and A. A. Samsonov. "Geoeffectiveness of interplanetary shocks controlled by impact angles: A review." Advances in Space Research 61, no. 1 (January 2018): 1–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2017.10.006.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Oliveira, Denny M., and Joachim Raeder. "Impact angle control of interplanetary shock geoeffectiveness: A statistical study." Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 120, no. 6 (June 2015): 4313–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015ja021147.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Snekvik, K., E. I. Tanskanen, and E. K. J. Kilpua. "An automated identification method for Alfvénic streams and their geoeffectiveness." Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 118, no. 10 (October 2013): 5986–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50588.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Talpeanu, D. C., S. Poedts, E. D’Huys, and M. Mierla. "Study of the propagation, in situ signatures, and geoeffectiveness of shear-induced coronal mass ejections in different solar winds." Astronomy & Astrophysics 658 (February 2022): A56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202141977.

Full text

Abstract:

Aims. Our goal is to propagate multiple eruptions –obtained through numerical simulations performed in a previous study– to 1 AU and to analyse the effects of different background solar winds on their dynamics and structure at Earth. We also aim to improve the understanding of why some consecutive eruptions do not result in the expected geoeffectiveness, and how a secondary coronal mass ejection (CME) can affect the configuration of the preceding one. Methods. Using the 2.5D magnetohydrodynamics package of the code MPI-AMRVAC, we numerically modelled consecutive CMEs inserted in two different solar winds by imposing shearing motions onto the inner boundary, which in our case represents the low corona. In one of the simulations, the secondary CME was a stealth ejecta resulting from the reconfiguration of the coronal field. The initial magnetic configuration depicts a triple arcade structure shifted southward, and embedded into a bimodal solar wind. We triggered eruptions by imposing shearing motions along the southernmost polarity inversion line, and the computational mesh tracks them via a refinement method that applies to current-carrying structures, and is continuously adapted throughout the simulations. We also compared the signatures of some of our eruptions with those of a multiple CME event that occurred in September 2009 using data from spacecraft around Mercury and Earth. Furthermore, we computed and analysed the Dst index for all the simulations performed. Results. The observed event fits well at 1 AU with two of our simulations, one with a stealth CME and the other without. This highlights the difficulty of attempting to use in situ observations to distinguish whether or not the second eruption was stealthy, because of the processes the flux ropes undergo during their propagation in the interplanetary space. We simulate the CMEs propagated in two different solar winds, one slow and another faster one. In the first case, plasma blobs arise in the trail of eruptions. The faster solar wind simulations create no plasma blobs in the aftermath of the eruptions, and therefore we interpret them as possible indicators of the initial magnetic configuration, which changes along with the background wind. Interestingly, the Dst computation results in a reduced geoeffectiveness in the case of consecutive CMEs when the flux ropes arrive with a leading positive Bz. When the Bz component is reversed, the geoeffectiveness increases, meaning that the magnetic reconnections with the trailing blobs and eruptions strongly affect the impact of the arriving interplanetary CME.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Laskari, Marina, Panagiota Preka-Papadema, Constantine Caroubalos, George Pothitakis, Xenophon Moussas, Eleftheria Mitsakou, and A. Hillaris. "Coronal shocks associated with CMEs and flares and their space weather consequences." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 4, S257 (September 2008): 61–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1743921309029093.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractWe study the geoeffectiveness of a sample of complex events; each includes a coronal type II burst, accompanied by a GOES SXR flare and LASCO CME. The radio bursts were recorded by the ARTEMIS-IV radio spectrograph, in the 100-650 MHz range; the GOES SXR flares and SOHO/LASCO CMEs, were obtained from the Solar Geophysical Data (SGD) and the LASCO catalogue respectively. These are compared with changes of solar wind parameters and geomagnetic indices in order to establish a relationship between solar energetic events and their effects on geomagnetic activity.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Verbanac, G., B. Vršnak, A. Veronig, and M. Temmer. "Equatorial coronal holes, solar wind high-speed streams, and their geoeffectiveness." Astronomy & Astrophysics 526 (December 15, 2010): A20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014617.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Verbanac, G., S. Živković, B. Vršnak, M. Bandić, and T. Hojsak. "Comparison of geoeffectiveness of coronal mass ejections and corotating interaction regions." Astronomy & Astrophysics 558 (October 2013): A85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201220417.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Petukhova, Anastasia, Ivan Petukhov, Stanislav Petukhov, and Petr Gololobov. "Cosmic rays as an indicator of the geoeffectiveness of magnetic clouds." E3S Web of Conferences 127 (2019): 02007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201912702007.

Full text

Abstract:

Geomagnetic storms are initiated by organized magnetic structures of the solar wind. The intensity of magnetic storms is determined by the product of the southward component of the magnetic field and the time interval, during which the structure is located near Earth: the larger the product, the higher the storm intensity. To determine the local properties of the structures, direct spacecraft measurements of the plasma and magnetic field characteristics are used. Global properties of the structures are also of great interest. Such information can be obtained using measurements of cosmic rays by the worldwide network of neutron monitors. Magnetic clouds are examples of these structures. About 30% of magnetic storms are caused by magnetic clouds. In our theory of the formation of Forbush decrease in a magnetic cloud, it has been found that the components of the vector anisotropy in time are determined by the magnetic cloud type. Thus, using the cosmic ray method, it is possible to determine a connection between the magnetic cloud type and the intensity of the magnetic storm. Similar connections can be made for other magnetic structures.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Yermolaev, Yu I., and M. Yu Yermolaev. "Review of experimental results on geoeffectiveness of solar and interplanetary events." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 2004, IAUS223 (June 2004): 567–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1743921304006908.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Wang, Yuming, Guiping Zhou, Pinzhong Ye, S. Wang, and Jingxiu Wang. "Orientation and Geoeffectiveness of Magnetic Clouds as Consequences of Filament Eruptions." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 2004, IAUS226 (September 2004): 448–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1743921305001018.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Georgieva, Katya, and Boian Kirov. "Helicity of Magnetic Clouds and Solar Cycle Variations of their Geoeffectiveness." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 2004, IAUS226 (September 2004): 470–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1743921305001079.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Vieira, L. E. A., W. D. Gonzalez, A. L. Clúa de Gonzalez, and A. Dal Lago. "A study of the geoeffectiveness of southward interplanetary magnetic field structures." Advances in Space Research 30, no. 10 (November 2002): 2335–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0273-1177(02)80264-2.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Yermolaev, Yu I., I. G. Lodkina, N. S. Nikolaeva, M. Yu Yermolaev, M. O. Riazantseva, and L. S. Rakhmanova. "Statistic study of the geoeffectiveness of compression regions CIRs and Sheaths." Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 180 (November 2018): 52–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2018.01.027.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Li, Yan, and Janet Luhmann. "Solar cycle control of the magnetic cloud polarity and the geoeffectiveness." Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 66, no. 3-4 (February 2004): 323–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2003.12.001.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Le, Gui-Ming, Chuan Li, Yu-Hua Tang, Liu-Guan Ding, Zhi-Qiang Yin, Yu-Lin Chen, Yang-Ping Lu, Min-Hao Chen, and Zhong-Yi Li. "Geoeffectiveness of the coronal mass ejections associated with solar proton events." Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 16, no. 1 (January 2016): 014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/16/1/014.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Eselevich, V. G., V. G. Fainshtein, and M. A. Filippov. "On the problem of geoeffectiveness of sporadic phenomena on the Sun." Planetary and Space Science 36, no. 10 (October 1988): 1015–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(88)90039-6.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Lugaz, N., C. J. Farrugia, R. M. Winslow, N. Al-Haddad, E. K. J. Kilpua, and P. Riley. "Factors affecting the geoeffectiveness of shocks and sheaths at 1 AU." Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 121, no. 11 (November 2016): 10,861–10,879. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016ja023100.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!