ERRATUM: “ElEvoHI: A NOVEL CME PREDICTION TOOL FOR HELIOSPHERIC IMAGING COMBINING AN ELLIPTICAL FRONT WITH DRAG-BASED MODEL FITTING” (ApJ, 824, 2, 131)

Amerstorfer, Tanja; Möstl, Christian; Isavnin, Alexey; Davies, J. A.; Kubicka, Manuel; Amerstorfer, Ute; Harrison, R. A.

doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/210

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here we focus on the HM, SSE, and ElCon models. Mishra et al [2014] presented evidence that the HM and SSE models outperformed the FP model for estimating CME kinematics, and we include the ElCon model as it is the latest published development in this area [Möstl et al, 2015;Rollett et al, 2016;Amerstorfer et al, 2016]. We implement the SSE model as given by Davies et al [2012], as well as the off-apex corrections to the CME front location given by Möstl and Davies [2013].…”

Section: Single-spacecraft Cme Geometric Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, methods such as ElEvoHI [Rollett et al, 2016;Amerstorfer et al, 2016] have been presented as a way to forecast CME arrival, by using the CME kinematics estimated from geometric modeling of HI observations, in conjunction with a best fit DBM. Although we have demonstrated that there are inconsistencies with the CME kinematics derived from the geometrical modeling of the studied events, we still considered it appropriate to test whether using these kinematics estimates in conjunction with a DBM, in a manner similar to ElEvoHi, could provide useful CME arrival time predictions.…”

Section: Comparing the + Dbm Predictions With The Swpc Forecastsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Testing the current paradigm for space weather prediction with heliospheric imagers

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predictions of the arrival of four coronal mass ejections (CMEs) in geospace are produced through use of three CME geometric models combined with CME drag modeling, constraining these models with the available Coronagraph and Heliospheric Imager data. The efficacy of these predications is assessed by comparison with the Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) numerical MHD forecasts of these same events. It is found that such a prediction technique cannot outperform the standard SWPC forecast at a statistically meaningful level. We test the Harmonic Mean, Self‐Similar Expansion, and Ellipse Evolution geometric models, and find that, for these events at least, the differences between the models are smaller than the observational errors. We present a new method of characterizing CME fronts in the Heliospheric Imager field of view, utilizing the analysis of citizen scientists working with the Solar Stormwatch project, and we demonstrate that this provides a more accurate representation of the CME front than is obtained by experts analyzing elongation time maps for the studied events. Comparison of the CME kinematics estimated independently from the STEREO‐A and STEREO‐B Heliospheric Imager data reveals inconsistencies that cannot be explained within the observational errors and model assumptions. We argue that these observations imply that the assumptions of the CME geometric models are routinely invalidated and question their utility in a space weather forecasting context. These results argue for the continuing development of more advanced techniques to better exploit the Heliospheric Imager observations for space weather forecasting.

show abstract