Dependence of geomagnetic field variations on the initial state of the magnetosphere-ionosphere system

1Sumaruk, Yu.P
1S.I. Subbotin Institute of Geophysics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine
Kosm. nauka tehnol. 2011, 17 ;(1):39-42
https://doi.org/10.15407/knit2011.01.039
Publication Language: Ukrainian
Abstract: 
The dependence of the geomagnetic field variations during a great magnetic storm on the initial state of the magnetosphere-ionosphere system is investigated. It is shown that intensity of auroral electrojet is controlled by integral wind parameters for several hours. The sensitivity of the magnetosphere-ionosphere system to changes of the solar wind parameters increases with the enhancement of ionosphere disturbance. The greater is the initial level of the ionosphere disturbance, the greater is the amplitude of the following variations at the same changes of interplanetary medium parameters.
Keywords: electrojet, geomagnetic field, solar wind
References: 
1. Belov B. A., Dremukhina L. A., Sumaruk P. V. Variations of the geomagnetic field at medium and low latitudes during the geomagnetic storm on March 23-24, 1969. In: Struktura geomagnitnyh vozmushhenij, 31—41 (IZMIRAN, Moscow, 1989) [in Russian].
2. Sumaruk P. V., Sumaruk Yu. P. The indices of the magnetic activity of AE during a magnetic storm. Geofiz. zhurn., 16 (4), 51—53 (1994) [in Russian].
3. Sumaruk P. V., Fel'dshtein Ia. I., Belov B. A. Dynamics of magnetospheric activity during an intense magnetic storm. Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiia, 29 (1), 110—115 (1989) [in Russian].
4. Sumaruk Yu. P. Dynamics of the sources of geomagnetic variations: Extended abstract of candidate’s thesis, 20 p. (Kyiv, 2001) [in Ukrainian].
5. Fel'dshtein Ia. I., Sumaruk P. V., Belov B. A. Variations of the geomagnetic field at the commencement and at the main phase of a magnetic storm (March 23-24, 1969). Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiia, 30 (1), 37—43 (1990) [in Russian].
6. Khorosheva O. V. Relationship between magnetospheric disturbances and parameters of the interplanetary medium. Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiia, 26 (3), 447—453 (1986) [in Russian].
7. Akasofu S.-I., Kan J. R. Importance of initial ionospheric conductivity on substorm onset. Planet. Space. Sci., 12, 1315—1322 (1982).
https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(82)90105-2
8. Axford W. I., Hines C. O. A unifying theory of high-latitude geophysical phenomena and geomagnetic storms. Can. J. Phys., 39, 1443—1459 (1961).
https://doi.org/10.1139/p61-172
9. Baumjohann W., Haerendel G. Dayside convection, viscous interaction and magnetic merging. In: Solar Wind — Magnetosphere Coupling, Eds Y. Kamide and A. Slavin, 230 p. (Terra, Tokyo, 1986).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4722-1_30
10. Dungey J. W. Interplanetary magnetic field and auroral zones. Phys. Rev. Lett., 6, 47—56 (1961).
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.6.47
11. Foster J. G., Fairfield D. H., Ogilvie K. W., Rosenberg T. J. Relationship of the interplanetary parameters and occurrence of the magnetospheric substorms. J. Geophys. Res., 76 (28), 6971—6986 (1971).
https://doi.org/10.1029/JA076i028p06971
12. Meng C.-I., Tsurutani B., Kawasaki K., Akasofu S.-I. Cross-correlation analysis of the AE-indices and IMF Bz component. J. Geophys. Res., 78 (4), 617—628 (1973).
https://doi.org/10.1029/JA078i004p00617
13. Perrault P., Akasofu S.-I. A study of geomagnetic storms. Geophys. J. Roy. Astron. Soc., 54, 547— 573 (1978).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1978.tb05494.x
14. Pytte T., McPherron R. L., Hones E. W., Jr., West H. I., Jr. Multiple-satellite studies of magnetospheric substorms: Distinction between polar magnetic substorms and convection driven bays. J. Geophys. Res., 83 (2), 663—683 (1978).
https://doi.org/10.1029/JA083iA02p00663
15. Rostoker G., Savoie D., Phan T. D. Response of magnetosphere — ionosphere current systems to changes in the interplanetary magnetic field. J. Geophys. Res., 93 (8), 8633—8641 (1988).
https://doi.org/10.1029/JA093iA08p08633

16. Russell C. T., McPherron R. L., Burton R. K. On the cause of geomagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res., 79 (7), 1105—1117 (1974).
https://doi.org/10.1029/JA079i007p01105