Evolution and Consequences of Interacting CMEs of 9 – 10 November 2012 Using STEREO/SECCHI and In Situ Observations

Mishra, Wageesh; Srivastava, Nandita; Chakrabarty, D.

doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0625-4

Cited by 49 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 83 publications

(118 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interactions with other CMEs can change both the speed and propagation direction of the interacting events (e.g., Gopalswamy et al 2001b;Farrugia & Berdichevsky 2004;Liu et al 2012Liu et al , 2014bLugaz et al 2012;Temmer et al 2012;Shen et al 2012;Mishra et al 2015). Almost all studies of CME-CME interactions have focused on the interaction between two events.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Propagation and Interaction Properties of Successive Coronal Mass Ejections in Relation to a Complex Type II Radio Burst

Liu

Zhao

Zhu

2017

ApJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the propagation and interaction properties of three successive coronal mass ejections (CMEs) from 2001 November 21-22, with a focus on their connection with the behaviors of the associated long-duration complex type II radio burst. In combination with coronagraph and multi-point in situ observations, the long-duration type II burst provides key features for resolving the propagation and interaction complexities of the three CMEs. The two CMEs from November 22 interacted first and then overtook the November 21 CME at a distance of about 0.85 AU from the Sun. The time scale for the shock originally driven by the last CME to propagate through the preceding two CMEs is estimated to be about 14 and 6 hr, respectively. We present a simple analytical model without any free parameters to characterize the whole Sun-to-Earth propagation of the shock, which shows a remarkable consistency with all the available data and MHD simulations even out to the distance of Ulysses (2.34 AU). The coordination of in situ measurements at the Earth and Ulysses, which were separated by about 71.4• in latitude, gives important clues for the understanding of shock structure and the interpretation of in situ signatures. The results also indicate means to increase geo-effectiveness with multiple CMEs, which can be considered as another manifestation of the "perfect storm" scenario proposed by Liu et al. (2014a) although the current case is not "super" in the same sense as the 2012 July 23 event.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Propagation and Interaction Properties of Successive Coronal Mass Ejections in Relation to a Complex Type II Radio Burst

Liu

Zhao

Zhu

2017

ApJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shen et al, 2012aShen et al, , 2013Colaninno and Vourlidas, 2015), (perfectly) inelastic collisions (e.g. Lugaz et al, 2012;Maričić et al, 2014;Mishra, Srivastava, and Chakrabarty, 2015) and nearly elastic collisions (Mishra and Srivastava, 2014;Mishra, Srivastava, and Singh, 2015) were also reported. This raises the question as to what controls the nature of the CME collision.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…The tie-pointing method, a kind of triangulation technique (Thompson, 2009), is an efficient method to derive the true kinematics of CMEs by tracking and triangulating selected features along the leading edge of the CMEs (Mishra, Srivastava, and Chakrabarty, 2015). It uses the concept of epipolar geometry (Inhester, 2006), and the same features in images from STEREO-A and -B are identified along the same epipolar line in both images.…”

Section: Cme Kinematicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The figure also shows that the nature of the collision remained in the inelastic regime and was unable to reach a perfectly inelastic (e = 0), elastic (e = 1), or superelastic (e > 1) regime for this event. Mishra, Srivastava, and Chakrabarty (2015) later analyzed the collision and post-collision characteristics of two CMEs during 9 -10 November 2012 using STEREO/SECCHI and in situ observations. To determine the directions and speeds of the CMEs more accurately and to track the CMEs in the HI FOV, the tie-pointing method (Thompson, 2009), the GCS forward modeling (Thernisien, Vourlidas, and Howard, 2009), the J-maps method (Davies et al, 2009), and the HM method ) were applied to study the interacting CMEs.…”

Section: D Head-on Collision With Momentum Conservation Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This largely stimulated the observational and numerical studies in this area (e.g. Gopalswamy et al, 2009;Xiong, Zheng, and Wang, 2009;Temmer et al, , 2014Shen et al, 2012a;Liu et al, , 2014Martínez-Oliveros et al, 2012;Webb et al, 2013;Shen et al, 2011Shen et al, , 2012bShen et al, , 2013Shen et al, , 2016Mishra and Srivastava, 2014;Mishra, Srivastava, and Chakrabarty, 2015;Mishra, Srivastava, and Singh, 2015;Mishra, Wang, and Srivastava, 2016;Shanmugaraju et al, 2014;Colaninno and Vourlidas, 2015). A comprehensive review about the interaction of successive CMEs and consequences in particle acceleration and geoeffectiveness by Lugaz et al (2017) can be found in the Topical Collection called Earth-affecting Solar Transients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the Collision Nature of Two Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Observational and numerical studies have shown that the kinematic characteristics of two or more coronal mass ejections (CMEs) may change significantly after a CME collision. The collision of CMEs can have a different nature, i.e. inelastic, elastic, and superelastic processes, depending on their initial kinematic characteristics. In this article, we first review the existing definitions of collision types including Newton's classical definition, the energy definition, Poisson's definition, and Stronge's definition, of which the first two were used in the studies of CME-CME collisions. Then, we review the recent research progresses on the nature of CME-CME collisions with the focus on which CME kinematic properties affect the collision nature. It is shown that observational analysis and numerical simulations can both yield an inelastic, perfectly inelastic, merging-like collision, or a high possibility of a superelastic collision. Meanwhile, previous studies based on a 3D collision picture suggested that a low approaching speed of two CMEs is favorable for a superelastic nature. Since CMEs are an expanding magnetized plasma structure, the CME collision process is quite complex, and we discuss this complexity. Moreover, the models used in both Earth-affecting Solar Transients Guest Editors: Jie Zhang, Xochitl Blanco-Cano, Nariaki Nitta, and Nandita Srivastava observational and numerical studies contain many limitations. All of the previous studies on collisions have not shown the separation of two colliding CMEs after a collision. Therefore the collision between CMEs cannot be considered as an ideal process in the context of a classical Newtonian definition. In addition, many factors are not considered in either observational analysis or numerical studies, e.g. CME-driven shocks and magnetic reconnections. Owing to the complexity of the CME collision process, a more detailed and in-depth observational analysis and simulation work are needed to fully understand the CME collision process.

show abstract

Kinematics of interacting CMEs of 25 and 28 September 2012

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have studied two coronal mass ejections (CMEs) that occurred on 25 and 28 September 2012 and interacted near the Earth. By fitting the Graduated Cylindrical Shell model on the SECCHI/COR2 images and applying the Stereoscopic Self‐Similar Expansion method on the SECCHI/HI images, the initial direction of both the CMEs is estimated to be west of the Sun‐Earth line. Further, the three‐dimensional (3‐D) heliospheric kinematics of these CMEs have been estimated using Self‐Similar Expansion (SSE) reconstruction method. We show that the use of SSE method with different values of angular extent of the CMEs leads to significantly different kinematics estimates for the CMEs propagating away from the observer. Using the estimated kinematics and true masses of the CMEs, we have derived the coefficient of restitution for the collision which is found to be close to elastic. The in situ measurements at 1 AU show two distinct structures of interplanetary CMEs, heating of the following CME, and ongoing interaction between the preceding and the following CME. We highlight the signatures of interaction in remote and in situ observations of these CMEs and the role of interaction in producing a major geomagnetic storm.

show abstract

Evolution and Consequences of Interacting CMEs of 9 – 10 November 2012 Using STEREO/SECCHI and In Situ Observations

Cited by 49 publications

References 83 publications

Propagation and Interaction Properties of Successive Coronal Mass Ejections in Relation to a Complex Type II Radio Burst

Propagation and Interaction Properties of Successive Coronal Mass Ejections in Relation to a Complex Type II Radio Burst

On the Collision Nature of Two Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

Kinematics of interacting CMEs of 25 and 28 September 2012

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About