NNs techniques have been successfully used for the prediction of various solar-terrestrial time series (e.g. Macpherson et al., 1995; Conway, 1998). Recently, this technique was also used to estimate the timing and amplitude of solar cycle 24 (Uwamahoro et al., 2009). With regards to the prediction of GMS, both FFNN and ERN-based algorithms have been applied and demonstrated good performance in predicting the geomagnetic Dst index during storm time (Wu and Lundstedt, 1997; Lundstedt et al., 2002). Currently, NNs techniques are widely used for real-time space weather forecasts:(e.g http://www.lund.irf.se/Helioshome/wg4nnhenrik.pdf). In this thesis, NN-based models were developed for predicting the occurrence and strength of GMS based on solar and IP parameters.
In summary, this chapter provided the basic principles of NN techniques as well as pointing out the difficulties inherent in space weather prediction. The complexity and non-linearity of the solar-terrestrial system justifies the preference given to NNs as a reliable tool for space weather prediction and forecasts. It must again be noted that the description of the NN techniques provided in this chapter is limited only to the basic principles. For more details about the FFNN and ERN techniques and their application, the reader is referred to references provided (Elman, 1990; Haykin, 1994; Fausett, 1994; Bishop, 1995).
The main sources of geomagnetic
storms in SC 23
Explosive events occurring on the Sun are primarily responsible for space weather which affects space-and ground-based technology, as well as life on Earth (e.g. Siscoe and Schwenn, 2006). This chapter provides a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the solar and associ- ated IP causes of GMS during the 11-year period of SC 23: 1996 - 2006. The probable solar causes of 229 GMS (Dst ≤ −50 nT) were investigated, with a focus on halo CMEs.
4.1
Geoeffectiveness of solar and IP phenomena
CMEs are transient expulsions of plasma and magnetic field from the Sun and are respon- sible for strong IP disturbances leading to GMS and related space weather phenomena, as described in Section 2.5.4, or in Lanzerotti (2007). GMS occur as a result of the energy transfer from the SW to the Earth’s magnetosphere via magnetic reconnection. The main solar sources of GMS are: (a) the CME eruptions on the Sun (Gopalswamy et al., 2007), and (b) the corotating interaction regions (CIRs) that result from the interaction between the fast and slow SW originating from coronal holes (Zhang et al., 2007). The two phe- nomena evolve in geoeffective conditions in the SW, producing moderate to intense GMS when there is an enhanced and long-lasting IMF in the southward direction (Richardson et al., 2002; Richardson, 2006; Gonzalez et al., 1994). However, despite the prominent role played by CMEs in producing GMS, the prediction of GMS cannot be based only on CME observations. As noted by Wang et al. (2002), the properties of CMEs that give rise to mag- netic storms are still not very clear. Therefore, improving the prediction of GMS requires the identification of the key solar and IP geoeffective parameters of CMEs (Srivastava, 2005). Currently, space-based instruments have facilitated advanced observation and understanding of storms occurring on the Sun, i.e. detection of CME eruptions on the Sun since the onset
of SC 23 (Brueckner et al., 1995). The CMEs that appear to surround the occulting disk of the observing coronagraphs are known as halo CMEs, among which those originating from the visible solar disc and are earth-directed have the highest probability of impacting the earth’s magnetosphere (Webb et al., 2000). Currently, the STEREO spacecraft allows CME tracking from the Sun to Earth and the received data will contribute towards improving the predictability of geoeffective CMEs (Messerotti et al., 2009).
The geoeffectiveness of a CME refers to its ability to produce a magnetic storm with Dst ≤ −50 nT. In their study, Webb et al. (2000) and Cyr et al. (2000) used 1400 and
1200 respectively as a threshold apparent angular width (AW) to define halo CMEs, while
a study by Wang et al. (2002) considered a halo CME to be the one with apparent AW greater than 1300. In this study halo CMEs are defined according to storm categorisation
by Gopalswamy et al. (2007): full halo CMEs (F-type) with an apparent sky plane width of 3600, and partial halos (P-type) with an apparent AW ranging between 1200 and 3600.
Over the 11-year period of SC 23 [from January 1996 to December 2006], 393 full halo CMEs were identified, representing 3.4% of the 11 683 CMEs recorded. During the same period the number of partial halo CMEs was 840. Therefore during the same period, LASCO observed 1 233 (10.5%) halo CMEs of which 393 (31.8%) were full halo CMEs and 840 (68.2%) partial halo CMEs. As illustrated in Figure 4.1, the frequency occurrence of full halo CMEs varies in step with the occurrence of GMS events for the 1996 - 2006 period. However, not all halo CMEs are geoeffective and the non halo CMEs can also cause GMS if they arrive at the Earth with an enhanced southward component of the IP magnetic field at high speed (e.g Gopalswamy et al., 2007). Indeed, and as indicated previously, both moderate and intense storms can also be caused by CIRs.
During the last few years, there has been increasing interest into research to estimate the geoeffectiveness of solar phenomena. A statistical study by Wang et al. (2002) investigated the geoeffectiveness of frontside CMEs during the rise of SC 23. The geoeffectiveness of both full and partial halo CMEs was discussed in detail by Gopalswamy et al. (2007) and Gopalswamy (2009b). Zhang et al. (2007) presented results of a study that investigated the solar and IP causes of major GMS events (Dst ≤ −100 nT) during the period 1996 - 2005. In spite of all the research on this subject, persistent discrepencies between the various estimations of storm-causing effects of solar and IP events remain. According to Yermolaev et al. (2005), differing results may be due to the methods used for analysis of the data. On the other hand, a recent study by Gopalswamy (2009b) suggests that the range of reported geoeffectivity rates can be explained by the different definitions given to halo CMEs.
The main goal of this analysis is to contribute to the efforts towards estimating the GMS effectiveness of solar events. The focus is to investigate halo CMEs and associated solar and IP properties that were most likely causes of the 229 GMS events identified during the period 1996 - 2006. The present study is similar the analysis done by Zhang et al. (2007) which involved only 88 major storms (Dst < −100 nT). This study describes an additional quantitative estimate of the solar and IP properties that were associated with moderate GMS during SC 23. In addition, this study compares the geoeffectiveness of full and partial halo CMEs.
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
2006
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Year
SSN / GMS and halo CMEs occurrence /year
GMS
SSN
H. CMEs
Figure 4.1: The correlation between solar activity cycle (in terms of sunspot number) and GMS occurrence during the last three solar cycles (SC 21, SC 22 and SC 23) is shown. For SC 23, the occurrence rate of GMS is shown for comparison with the occurrence rate of halo CMEs.