Indian Journal of Radio & Space Physics Vol 41, December 2012, pp 575-578

Strong solar flares, weak geo-effectiveness

R P Kane
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas EspaciaisINPE, C P 515, So Jose dos Campos, Brazil E-mail: kane@dge.inpe.br Received 4 May 2012; revised 24 October 2012; accepted 2 November 2012 The link between solar flares (particularly, the strong X-ray flares) and geophysical effects is: (a) solar flare; (b) associated coronal mass ejection (CME); (c) the interplanetary CME (ICME), which follows and engulfs the Earth; and (d) its geo-effectiveness (geomagnetic storms represented by the index Dst occurring only if there is a large negative Bz component of the ICME magnetic field B). For cosmic ray Forbush decreases, only a large B matters, while negative Bz magnitude is irrelevant. During 2011, there were some X-ray flare events. It was noticed that for all these, the last link, namely a substantial negative Bz, was absent and hence, only very weak geomagnetic storms resulted. Cosmic ray Forbush decreases also occurred, but magnitudes were small. Thus, in the early rising phase of a sunspot cycle, even though some local conditions could be favourable for producing strong solar flares (even X-ray flares), the overall solar activity is not adequate enough (for example in 2011) to produce strong coronal mass ejections. Next year, in 2012, there was a strong X-ray flare on 6 March. The interplanetary data are missing; but Dst depression and Forbush decrease were substantial, indicating strong CME activity, probably due to an enhanced general solar activity. Keywords: Solar flare, X-ray flare, Geomagnetic storm, Coronal mass ejection (CME), Interplanetary CME, Cosmic ray Forbush decrease PACS Nos: 94.30.Lr; 96.60.ph; 96.60.qe

1 Introduction The solar surface is full of spots, which look black because these are cooler than the surrounding region. Known as sunspots, these were noticed by several earlier observers1-3. Schwabe4 showed that the yearly sunspot numbers have an approximate 11-year cycle. Sunspots are caused by very strong magnetic fields on the Sun and usually appear in pairs, one spot leading and the other following. The two spots have opposite magnetic polarities, joined by vertical loops. Due to the differential rotation of the Sun at different latitudes, the sunspot magnetic fields are twisted. When the tangled fields reach a breaking point, huge bursts of energy are released due to magnetic field line reconnection and annihilation. This leads to solar flares5,6, and coronal mass ejections (CMEs)7,8. These have considerable effects on the Earths ionosphere and geomagnetic field. The enhanced electromagnetic radiations [visible, ultraviolet (UV), extreme ultraviolet (EUV), X-rays and in rare cases, gamma rays] from the solar flare reach the ionospheric regions directly within a few minutes and cause enhancement in ionospheric number densities, which cause ionospheric disturbances leading to communication disruptions in the day-lit parts of the

Earth. The solar flares may also cause sometimes particle accelerations, and solar energetic particles (SEP, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energetic_particles) may reach the Earth within a few hours. Also, the coronal mass ejections (CME) often associated with solar flares, travel outwards in conical shapes and, in some very strong events, may have a spread of more than 90o. During the transit in interplanetary space towards the Earth, a CME gets distorted and the distorted version Interplanetary CME (ICME) reaching the Earth after several tens of hours, may have characteristics different from the original CME; but in general, a wide CME gives rise to a wide ICME which has a good chance of engulfing the Earth. When this happens, geomagnetic changes occur, starting with a compression of the magnetosphere leading to storm sudden commencements (SCC). These can be followed by geomagnetic storms (depressions of geomagnetic field, represented by the Dst index9) but not invariably. Much depends upon the magnetic configuration of the ICME. Thus, even if the total magnetic field B in the ICME is large, a large geomagnetic storm occurs only if its Bz component is substantially negative. The reason

576

INDIAN J RADIO & SPACE PHYS, DECEMBER 2012

for this dependence is explained by the Dungey mechanism10. When Bz is negative, magnetic reconnection occurs at the daytime magnetopause between the terrestrial magnetic field and the southward Bz component of the interplanetary field. When the field lines are swept back in the geomagnetic tail, a neutral point is formed, through which the solar wind gets an entry into the magnetosphere. Low-energy particles spiral around the stretched geomagnetic field lines and impinge on the terrestrial atmosphere in the polar region, causing enhanced aurora. High-energy particles rush towards the Earth but are deflected around the Earth (Flemings right-hand rule law) in circular orbits in the equatorial plane, forming a ring current at several earth radii, which causes large geomagnetic field reductions at the ground (negative Dst). With Bz negative of about 25-30 nT, Dst(min) occurs in a range of 200-600 nT. Thus, for strong geomagnetic storms, the negative Bz component must have a substantial value. The Earth is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays (CR) (http://www.srl.caltech.edu/personnel/dick/cos_ encyc.html) coming from extragalactic space. When the Earth is engulfed by an ICME, the cosmic ray path to the Earth is modified. Cosmic rays are deflected away and cosmic ray intensity reductions (depressions) occur (cosmic ray storms, called Forbush decreases). The magnitude of the CR depression depends upon the magnitude of the total magnetic field B of the ICME, but the Bz component has no relevance. Thus, the magnitudes of cosmic ray storms and geomagnetic Dst storms may not be proportional, though occurring due to the same ICME structure. In this communication, the geomagnetic and cosmic ray effects of several recent strong X-ray flares have been compared. 2 Recent strong solar flares Solar flares are classified by their energy output (watts/square meter) as A < 10-7, B 10-7 - 10-6, C 10-6 10-5, M 10-5 - 10-4, and X > 10-4. In each category, there are subcategories. Thus, the highest category X has subcategories X-1, X-2, etc. in ascending order of outputs. In the 11-year sunspot cycle, strong solar flares occur mostly in the peak years of sunspot number and in the declining phase. However, in the present sunspot cycle 24 which started in August 2009 (sunspot number zero) and is expected

to have a peak sunspot number of about 90 (Ref. 11) in 2013-2014. A strong solar flare (X-2.2) occurred on 15 February 2011 at 0100 hrs UT, when the sunspot number was only about 30, only two years after the recent sunspot minimum, and far below the expected maximum of ~90. It caused communication disturbances in the Australasian region (notably China), which was day-lit. But its geo-effectiveness was small. In the ICME, the total magnetic field B was only ~20 nT, the negative Bz component was ~15 nT, the solar wind velocity was only ~500 km s-1. The geomagnetic Dst index was only ~35 nT negative, and the cosmic ray Forbush decrease was only ~ 5% (Ref. 12). Contrast to this was the giant Halloween event of 28 October, 2003 (X-ray flare, X-17.2), when the ICME total magnetic field B was ~60 nT, negative Bz was ~60 nT, solar wind velocity was >1500 km s-1, negative Dst was ~360 nT, and cosmic ray Forbush decrease was ~25% (Refs 12, 13). Thus, the strong X-ray solar flare of 15 February 2011 had weak geomagnetic effects. Since then, several more strong X-ray flares have occurred in 2011. Table 1 compares the geomagnetic and cosmic ray variations of these strong X-ray flares (ionospheric effects are not considered here, as these are invariably large in the day-lit areas, for all X-ray flares). In Table 1, the three CME speeds are: linear speed, second order speed at the final height, and second order speed at 20 Rs (solar radii). As an example, Fig. 1 shows the evolution of the interplanetary and geophysical parameters after the strong X 2.2 flare of 15 February 2011. This figure is reproduced from Kane12, where full details of this event are discussed. The most striking feature is the very small value of the negative Bz component (-5 nT), yielding very small value (-27 nT) of geomagnetic Dst index. Thus, virtually, no storm effects were observed. 3 Discussion and Conclusions Thus, for all X-ray flares that occurred in 2011, the ICME parameters (when available) were weak or moderate, Dst changes were weak (or moderate, 80 nT in one case), and CR Forbush decreases were weak (less than 5%). It may be concluded that in the initial stages of a sunspot cycle (rising phase), though local conditions may be favourable for strong solar flare eruptions, the overall activity causing coronal mass ejections (CME) is weak.

KANE: STRONG SOLAR FLARES, WEAK GEO-EFFECTIVENESS

577

Table 1Recent strong X-ray solar flares and their geomagnetic and cosmic ray effects Flare event CME speed, ICME number ICME solar wind ICME total mag ICME negative Geomagnetic CR ray Forbush km s-1 density (N) velocity (V), km s-1 field (B), nT Bz, nT negative Dst, nT decrease, % ~700 31 5 27 4.9

15 Feb 2011 669,508,471 40 (0100 hrs UT) X-2.2 332,259 25 9 Mar 2011 (2300 hrs UT) X-1.5 9 Aug 2011 1610,1419,1506 No data (0800 hrs UT) X-6.9 575,589,582 40 6 Sep 2011 (2200 hrs UT) X-2.1 7 Mar 2012 2684,2379,2594 No data (0200 hrs UT) X-5.4 28 Oct 2003 2459,2229,2268 Intermittent X-17.2

580

14

10

80

2.9

No data

No data

No data

20

3.0

600

20

15

64

3.5

No data

No data

No data

133

14

>1500

~60

~60

360

25

Fig. 1Hourly values during 16-20 February 2011 for interplanetary parameters: solar wind speed V, total magnetic field B [both show the start of the disturbance at 0000-0300 hrs UT on 18 February) and the magnetic field component Bz; bottom plot is for the geomagnetic disturbance index Dst (Kane12)]

578

INDIAN J RADIO & SPACE PHYS, DECEMBER 2012 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Carrington R C, Description of a singular appearance seen in the Sun on September 1, 1859, Mon Not R Astron Soc (UK), 20 (1859) pp 1315. Hudson H, Haisch B & Strong K T, Comment on The Solar Flare Myth by J. T. Gosling, J Geophys Res (USA), 100 (A3) (1995) pp 34733477, doi: 10.1029/94JA02710. Parker E N, Extension of the solar corona into interplanetary space, J Geophys Res (USA), 64 (1959) pp 16751681. Tousey R, The Solar Corona, in Cospar Space Research XIII, editrd by M J Rycroft & S K Runcorn (Akademie-Verlag, Berlin), 1973, pp 713-730. Sugiura M, Hourly values of the equatorial Dst for IGY, Annals of the International Geophysical Year, 35 (Pergamon Press, Oxford), 1964, pp 945948. Dungey J W, Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones, Phys Rev Lett (USA), 6 (1961) pp 4748. Kane R P, Size of the coming solar cycle 24 based on Ohls precursor method: final estimate, Ann Geophys (Germany), 28 (2010a) pp 14631466. Kane R P, Solar flare of 15 February 2011 and its geomagnetic effects, Indian J Radio Space Phys, 40 (2011) pp 253-256. Kane R P, Scatter in the plots of Dst(min) versus Bz(min), Planet Space Sci (UK), 58 (2010b) pp 1792-1801. Kane R P, Severe geomagnetic storms and Forbush decreases: Interplanetary relationships reexamined, Ann Geophys (Germany), 28 (2010) pp 479489.

In the next year, on 7 March 2012, there was a very strong X-ray solar flare. The interplanetary data are missing; but the geomagnetic negative Dst was large (133 nT) and the cosmic ray Forbush decrease was also large (14%). The sunspot number had risen above 50 (in contrast to ~30 in 2011); so, general solar activity had probably increased enough to produce strong CME activity. Acknowledgements This work was partially supported by FNDCT, Brazil, under contract FINEP-537/CT. References
1. 2. 3. 4. Chapman S & Bartels J, Geomagnetism vol 1 (Oxford Univ Press, New York), 1940, pp 328337. Kiepenheuer K O, Solar activity, in The Sun, Ed: G P Kuiper, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 1953, pp 322-465. Mckinnon, Sunspot numbers 1610-1985, UAG Report 95 (NOAA Boulder, Colorado), 1987, 112. Schwabe A N, Sounen-Beobachtungen in Jahre 1843, Astron Nachr (Germany), 21 (1844) pp 233-246.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14.