A multiwavelength study of eruptive events on January 23, 2012 associated with a major solar energetic particle event

Joshi, Navin Chandra; Uddin, Wahab; Srivastava, A. K.; Chandra, Ramesh; Gopalswamy, Ν.; Manoharan, P. K.; Aschwanden, Markus J.; Choudhary, Debi Prasad; Jain, Rajmal; Nitta, N.; Xie, H.; Yashiro, S.; Akiyama, S.; Mäkelä, P.; Kayshap, Pradeep; Awasthi, Arun Kumar; Dwivedi, Vidya Charan; Mahalakshmi, K.

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2013.03.009

Cited by 24 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A similar case was reported by Cheng et al (2013), who studied two successive CMEs originating on 23 January 2012, and found that the first CME partially removed the overlying field and triggered the torus instability for the second CME one and half hours later. These two eruptions have also been studied in details by Li and Zhang (2013), Joshi et al (2013) and Sterling et al (2014), and their interplanetary consequences by Liu et al (2013). Another example was the two eruptions separated by about 50 minutes on 7 March 2012 from AR 11429 analyzed by , who studied the magnetic field restructuring and helicity injection changes before and during these two successive eruptions.…”

Section: Homologous Cmesmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Interaction of Successive Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a review of the different aspects associated with the interaction of successive coronal mass ejections (CMEs) in the corona and inner heliosphere, focusing on the initiation of series of CMEs, their interaction in the heliosphere, the particle acceleration associated with successive CMEs, and the effect of compound events on Earth's magnetosphere. The two main mechanisms resulting in the eruption of series of CMEs are sympathetic eruptions, when one eruption triggers another, and homologous eruptions, when a series of similar eruptions originates from one active region. CME-CME interaction may also be associated with two unrelated eruptions. The interaction of successive CMEs has been observed remotely in coronagraphs (with the Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph Experiment -LASCO-since the early 2000s) and heliospheric imagers (since the late 2000s), and inferred from in situ measurements, starting with early measurements in the 1970s. The interaction of two or more CMEs is associated with complex phenomena, including magnetic reconnection, momentum exchange, the propagation of a fast magnetosonic shock through a magnetic ejecta, and changes in the CME expansion. The presence of a preceding CME a few hours before a fast eruption has been found to be connected with higher fluxes of solar energetic particles (SEPs), while CME-CME interaction occurring in the corona is often associated with unusual radio bursts, indicating electron acceleration. Higher suprathermal population, enhanced turbulence and wave activity, stronger shocks, and shock-shock or shock-CME interaction have been proposed as potential physical mechanisms to explain the observed associated SEP events. When measured in situ, CME-CME interaction may be associated with relatively well organized multiple-magnetic cloud events, instances of shocks propagating through a previous magnetic ejecta or more complex ejecta, when the characteristics of the individual eruptions cannot be easily distinguished. CME-CME interaction is associated with some of the most intense recorded geomagnetic storms. The compression of a CME by another and the propagation of a shock inside a magnetic ejecta can lead to extreme values of the southward magnetic field component, sometimes associated with large values of the dynamic pressure. This can result in intense geomagnetic storms, but also trigger substorms and large earthward motions of the magnetopause, potentially associated with changes in the outer radiation belts. Future in situ measurements in the inner heliosphere by Solar Probe+ and Solar Orbiter may shed light on the evolution of CMEs as they interact, by providing opportunities for conjunction and evolutionary studies.

show abstract

Section: Homologous Cmesmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Interaction of Successive Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ENLIL prediction error in Figure b is computed as Err enlil = T enlil − T obs , where T enlil and T obs are the ENLIL and Wind shock arrival times (SAT). For the 23 January 2012 event, the ENLIL model SAT at Earth is 19:37 UT on 24 January, yielding a prediction error of ∼5.0 h compared to the Wind SAT of 14:38 UT [ Joshi et al , ]. The ENLIL shock speed at 1 AU is 722 km/s in Figure c, which is comparable to the Wind shock speed of 647 km/s, with an error of ∼75 km/s.…”

Section: Simulation With the Wsa‐cone‐enlil Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding shock dynamics in the inner heliosphere with modeling and type II radio data: A statistical study

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] We study two methods of predicting interplanetary shock location and strength in the inner heliosphere: (1) the ENLIL simulation and (2) the kilometric type II (kmTII) prediction. To evaluate differences in the performance of the first method, we apply two sets of coronal mass ejections (CME) parameters from the cone-model fitting and flux-rope (FR) model fitting as input to the ENLIL model for 16 halo CMEs. The results show that the ENLIL model using the actual CME speeds from FR-fit provided an improved shock arrival time (SAT) prediction. The mean prediction errors for the FR and cone-model inputs are 4.90˙5.92 h and 5.48˙6.11 h, respectively. A deviation of 100 km s -1 from the actual CME speed has resulted in a SAT error of 3.46 h on average. The simulations show that the shock dynamics in the inner heliosphere agrees with the drag-based model. The shock acceleration can be divided as two phases: a faster deceleration phase within 50 R s and a slower deceleration phase at distances beyond 50 R s . The linear-fit deceleration in phase 1 is about 1 order of magnitude larger than that in phase 2. When applying the kmTII method to 14 DH-km CMEs, we found that combining the kmTII method with the ENLIL outputs improved the kmTII prediction. Due to a better modeling of plasma density upstream of shocks and the kmTII location, we are able to provide a more accurate shock time-distance and speed profiles. The mean kmTII prediction error using the ENLIL model density is 6.7˙6.4 h; it is 8.4˙10.4 h when the average solar wind plasma density is used. Applying the ENLIL density has reduced the mean kmTII prediction error by 2 h and the standard deviation by 4.0 h. Especially when we applied the combined approach to two interacting events, the kmTII prediction error was drastically reduced from 29.6 h to -4.9 h in one case and 10.6 h to 4.2 h in the other. Furthermore, the results derived from the kmTII method and the ENLIL simulation, together with white-light data, provide a valuable validation of shock formation location and strength. Such information has important implications for solar energetic particle acceleration. Citation: Xie, H., O. C. St. Cyr, N. Gopalswamy, D. Odstrcil, and H. Cremades (2013), Understanding shock dynamics in the inner heliosphere with modeling and type II radio data: A statistical study,

show abstract

“…Our conclusion based on characteristics of different indices and interplanetary parameters that the geomagnetic storms of 22-25 January are derived by CMEs is also supported by recent work of Joshi et al (2013) who have analysed multiwavelength data from space and ground based instruments to study the solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) on January 23. They have shown that on January 23, 2012 three solar flares (C2.5, M1.1 and M8.7) occurred, and the last two were associated with two major CMEs.…”

Section: Wave Componentmentioning

confidence: 61%