Forward Modeling of Coronal Mass Ejection Flux Ropes in the Inner Heliosphere with 3DCORE

Möstl, Christian; Amerstorfer, Tanja; Palmerio, Erika; Isavnin, Alexey; Farrugia, Charles J.; Lowder, Chris; Winslow, R. M.; Donnerer, Julia; Kilpua, Emilia; Boakes, Peter

doi:10.1002/2017sw001735

Cited by 61 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 75 publications

(158 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Event number 10 is a CME‐CME interaction event in June 2012 for which the CME‐ICME relation has been clarified in several previous studies (e.g., James et al, ; Kubicka et al, ; Palmerio et al, ; Srivastava et al, ). Event number 18 is a lineup event which was also partly observed by MErcury Surface Space ENvironment, Geochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER), situated only a few degrees away from the Sun‐Earth line (Möstl et al, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Coronal Magnetic Structure of Earthbound CMEs and In Situ Comparison

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predicting the magnetic field within an Earth‐directed coronal mass ejection (CME) well before its arrival at Earth is one of the most important issues in space weather research. In this article, we compare the intrinsic flux rope type, that is, the CME orientation and handedness during eruption, with the in situ flux rope type for 20 CME events that have been uniquely linked from Sun to Earth through heliospheric imaging. Our study shows that the intrinsic flux rope type can be estimated for CMEs originating from different source regions using a combination of indirect proxies. We find that only 20% of the events studied match strictly between the intrinsic and in situ flux rope types. The percentage rises to 55% when intermediate cases (where the orientation at the Sun and/or in situ is close to 45°) are considered as a match. We also determine the change in the flux rope tilt angle between the Sun and Earth. For the majority of the cases, the rotation is several tens of degrees, while 35% of the events change by more than 90°. While occasionally the intrinsic flux rope type is a good proxy for the magnetic structure impacting Earth, our study highlights the importance of capturing the CME evolution for space weather forecasting purposes. Moreover, we emphasize that determination of the intrinsic flux rope type is a crucial input for CME forecasting models.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Coronal Magnetic Structure of Earthbound CMEs and In Situ Comparison

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As seen in time-elongation maps at a fixed position angle (J-maps; see Davies et al, 2009), STEREO-B has a view up to about 35 • elongation, whereas STEREO-A does not observe the CME in HI2 field of view and barely past 15 • . However, at large observing angles, the convolution between CME shape, kinematics, and the observing geometry becomes inextricable (Lugaz & Kintner, 2013;Möstl et al, 2018;Howard et al, 2013;Liu et al, 2016), and methods to derive the CME properties have not been carefully tested for these conditions. This is due to a combination of the wide nature of the CME density structure and the relatively low increase in scattering efficiency away from the Thomson sphere (Howard & DeForest, 2012).…”

Section: Heliospheric Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While it may seem surprising that a CME can be observed into HI2 field of view so far from the Sun-STEREO line, this possibility was raised relatively early in the mission . We use measurements made from the STEREO-B J-maps to determine the CME kinematics and compare with the results from Möstl et al (2018). However, at large observing angles, the convolution between CME shape, kinematics, and the observing geometry becomes inextricable (Lugaz & Kintner, 2013;Möstl et al, 2018;Howard et al, 2013;Liu et al, 2016), and methods to derive the CME properties have not been carefully tested for these conditions.…”

Section: Heliospheric Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In section 2, we discuss then combine in situ measurements and remote-sensing observations to estimate the CME kinematics in the inner heliosphere. Performing their own GCS reconstruction, Möstl et al (2018) found an average coronal speed of 575 ± 60 km/s, a central position of S01W01 and a tilt of −18 • ± 6 • . In section 4, we focus on the ME expansion, before turning our interest to the CME sheath and shock in section 5.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evolution of a Long‐Duration Coronal Mass Ejection and Its Sheath Region Between Mercury and Earth on 9–14 July 2013

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using in situ measurements and remote-sensing observations, we study a coronal mass ejection (CME) that left the Sun on 9 July 2013 and impacted both Mercury and Earth while the planets were in radial alignment (within 3 • ). The CME had an initial speed as measured by coronagraphs of 580 ± 20 km/s, an inferred speed at Mercury of 580 ± 30 km/s, and a measured maximum speed at Earth of 530 km/s, indicating that it did not decelerate substantially in the inner heliosphere. The magnetic field measurements made by MESSENGER and Wind reveal a very similar magnetic ejecta at both planets. We consider the CME expansion as measured by the ejecta duration and the decrease of the magnetic field strength between Mercury and Earth and the velocity profile measured in situ by Wind. The long-duration magnetic ejecta (20 and 42 hr at Mercury and Earth, respectively) is found to be associated with a relatively slowly expanding ejecta at 1 AU, revealing that the large size of the ejecta is due to the CME itself or its expansion in the corona or innermost heliosphere and not due to a rapid expansion between Mercury at 0.45 AU and Earth at 1 AU. We also find evidence that the CME sheath is composed of compressed material accumulated before the shock formed, as well as more recently shocked material.

show abstract

“…This approach builds on the classification scheme of Bothmer and Schwenn (1998), which itself uses the helicity rule of Rust and Kumar (1994). Related but different techniques have been proposed by Palmerio et al (2017) and Möstl et al (2018), which rely purely on solar and coronal observations to determine the initial state of the CME. However, these techniques may not be always successful in forecasting complex geomagnetic storms (for example, due to multiple CMEs) and need to be further tested over a large number of events.…”

Section: 1029/2018sw002056mentioning

confidence: 99%

Forecasting Periods of Strong Southward Magnetic Field Following Interplanetary Shocks

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long periods of strong southward magnetic fields are known to be the primary cause of intense geomagnetic storms. The majority of such events are caused by the passage over Earth of a magnetic ejecta. Irrespective of the interplanetary cause, fast‐forward shocks often precede such strong southward Bz periods. Here we first look at all long periods of strong southward magnetic fields as well as fast‐forward shocks measured by the Wind spacecraft in a 22.4‐year span. We find that 76% of strong southward Bz periods are preceded within 48 hr by at least a fast‐forward shock, but only about 23% of all shocks are followed within 48 hr by strong southward Bz periods. Then, we devise a threshold‐based probabilistic forecasting method based on the shock properties and the pre‐shock near‐Earth solar wind plasma and interplanetary magnetic field characteristics adopting a superposed epoch analysis‐like approach. Our analysis shows that the solar wind conditions in the 30‐min interval around the arrival of fast‐forward shocks have a significant contribution to the prediction of long‐duration southward Bz periods. This probabilistic model may provide on average a 14‐hr warning time for an intense and long‐duration southward Bz period. Evaluating the forecast capability of the model through a statistical and skill score‐based approach reveals that it outperforms a coin‐flipping forecast. By using the information provided by the arrival of a fast‐forward shock at L1, this model represents a marked improvement over similar forecasting methods. We outline a number of future potential improvements.

show abstract

Forward Modeling of Coronal Mass Ejection Flux Ropes in the Inner Heliosphere with 3DCORE

Cited by 61 publications

References 75 publications

Coronal Magnetic Structure of Earthbound CMEs and In Situ Comparison

Coronal Magnetic Structure of Earthbound CMEs and In Situ Comparison

Evolution of a Long‐Duration Coronal Mass Ejection and Its Sheath Region Between Mercury and Earth on 9–14 July 2013

Forecasting Periods of Strong Southward Magnetic Field Following Interplanetary Shocks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About