Interplanetary magnetic clouds At 1 AU

Klein, Lawrence S.; Burlaga, L. F.

doi:10.1029/ja087ia02p00613

Cited by 875 publications

(599 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

576

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[12] Klein and Burlaga [1982] did not find a significant difference in the storm intensities according with the magnetic cloud type. However, Zhang and Burlaga [1988] reported that SN clouds could be more effective.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[7] A magnetic cloud list was also compiled from events reported in literature [Klein and Burlaga, 1982;Marsden et al, 1987;Bothmer and Rust, 1997;Bothmer and Schwenn, 1998;Bravo and Blanco-Cano, 1998;Crooker et al, 1998;Bravo et al, 1999;Blanco-Cano and Bravo, 2001] and from the magnetic clouds table on-line, internet homepage: http:// lepmfi.gsfc.nasa.gov/mfi/mag_cloud_pub1.html,2002. From these references, magnetic cloud events were checked through visual inspection of OMNI database solar wind GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL.…”

Section: Methodsologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Geoeffectiveness of interplanetary shocks, magnetic clouds, sector boundary crossings and their combined occurrence

Echer

González

2004

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] The aim of this work is to study the geoeffectiveness of interplanetary shock waves, magnetic clouds, heliospheric current sheet sector boundary crossings, and the combinations of these interplanetary structures. Both single and compound structures have their geoeffectiveness evaluated, considering the percentage of moderate and intense magnetic storms (Dst À50 nT) that followed each event. With this criteria, it was found that, on average, around 57% of the interplanetary shocks, 26% of the sector boundary crossings, 77% of the magnetic clouds, 80% of magnetic clouds at sector boundaries, 60% of interplanetary shocks at sector boundaries, 81% of magnetic clouds driving shocks, 83% of magnetic clouds compressed by high speed streams, and 100% of magnetic clouds driving shocks and located at sector boundaries are geoeffective. Thus, compound interplanetary magnetic structures were found to be more geoeffective than single interplanetary magnetic structures.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Geoeffectiveness of interplanetary shocks, magnetic clouds, sector boundary crossings and their combined occurrence

Echer

González

2004

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the solar wind, observations of the IMF provide information about the development and evolution of a variety of processes. On large scales, multi-point measurements of the magnetic field across the heliosphere reveal the expansion of the solar wind as it travels away from the Sun; including transient events such as Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) [Klein and Burlaga, 1982]. On smaller scales, fluctuations in the magnetic field data can be used to characterise the turbulence inherent in the flow.…”

Section: Cassini Fluxgate Magnetometermentioning

confidence: 99%

The Near-Saturn Magnetic Field Environment

Sulaiman

2017

Springer Theses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shock waves exist throughout the universe and are fundamental to understanding the nature of collisionless plasmas. The complex coupling between charged particles and electromagnetic fields in plasmas give rise to a whole host of mechanisms for dissipation and heating across shock waves, particularly at high Mach numbers. While ongoing studies have investigated these process extensively both theoretically and via simulations, their observations remain few and far between. This thesis presents a study of very high Mach number shocks in a parameter space that has been poorly explored and identifies reformation using in situ magnetic field observations from the This non-axisymmetry is revealed to have an impact in the rotation of the magnetic field and is significant enough to influence the magnetic shear at the magnetopause.

show abstract

“…The sudden jumps in energetic proton flux measured in situ associated with the passage of interplanetary shocks are called energetic storm particle (ESP) events (Bryant et al 1962). On the other hand, when the magnetic clouds or interplanetary sheaths that arrive at Earth possess southward magnetic fields, they drive intense geomagnetic storms (Dungey 1961;Klein & Burlaga 1982;Tsurutani et al 1988;Zhang et al 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When the magnetic fields of ICMEs observed in situ show continuous rotation, they are called magnetic clouds (Klein & Burlaga 1982). Fast ICMEs drive shock waves.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sheath-accumulating Propagation of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection

Takahashi

Shibata

2017

ApJL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fast interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) are the drivers of strong space weather storms such as solar energetic particle events and geomagnetic storms. The connection between the space-weather-impacting solar wind disturbances associated with fast ICMEs at Earth and the characteristics of causative energetic CMEs observed near the Sun is a key question in the study of space weather storms, as well as in the development of practical space weather prediction. Such shock-driving fast ICMEs usually expand at supersonic speeds during the propagation, resulting in the continuous accumulation of shocked sheath plasma ahead. In this paper, we propose a "sheath-accumulating propagation" (SAP) model that describes the coevolution of the interplanetary sheath and decelerating ICME ejecta by taking into account the process of upstream solar wind plasma accumulation within the sheath region. Based on the SAP model, we discuss (1) ICME deceleration characteristics; (2) the fundamental condition for fast ICMEs at Earth; (3) the thickness of interplanetary sheaths; (4) arrival time prediction; and (5) the super-intense geomagnetic storms associated with huge solar flares. We quantitatively show that not only the speed but also the mass of the CME are crucial for discussing the above five points. The similarities and differences between the SAP model, the drag-based model, and the"snow-plow" model proposed by Tappin are also discussed.

show abstract

Interplanetary magnetic clouds At 1 AU

Cited by 875 publications

References 36 publications

Geoeffectiveness of interplanetary shocks, magnetic clouds, sector boundary crossings and their combined occurrence

Geoeffectiveness of interplanetary shocks, magnetic clouds, sector boundary crossings and their combined occurrence

The Near-Saturn Magnetic Field Environment

Sheath-accumulating Propagation of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About