Kinematics of Interacting ICMEs and Related Forbush Decrease: Case Study

Maričić, Darije; Vršnak, Bojan; Dumbović, Mateja; Žic, Tomislav; Roša, Dragan; Hržina, Damir; Lulić, Slaven; Romštajn, Ivan; Bušić, Ivan; Salamon, Krešimir; Temmer, Manuela; Rollett, T.; Veronig, Astrid; Bostanjyan, N.; Chilingarian, A.; Mailyan, B.; Arakelyan, K.; Hovhannisyan, A.; Mujić, Naida

doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0314-8

Cited by 50 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Equation 6 was used to determine the optimal value of e. Their results showed that the nature of the observed collision remained almost perfectly inelastic. These calculations also supported the claim that a significant exchange of kinetic energy and momentum took place during the CME-CME collision Lugaz et al, 2012;Shen et al, 2012a;Maričić et al, 2014). In the same year, Mishra, Srivastava, and Singh (2015) used the same method to study the kinematics of the interacting CMEs of 25 and 28 September 2012.…”

Section: D Head-on Collision With Momentum Conservation Constraintsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…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: 86%

“…Temmer et al, 2014;Maričić et al, 2014;Shanmugaraju et al, 2014;Mishra and Srivastava, 2014). Temmer et al (2014) presented a detailed study of the interaction process of two CMEs launched on 14 February and 15 February.…”

Section: D Head-on Collisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They found that a simplified scenario such as an inelastic collision may not be sufficient to describe the loss of the total kinetic energy of the CMEs during the CME-CME interaction. Maričić et al (2014) studied the heliospheric propagation and some space weather aspects of these three CMEs. They determined that there was an obvious increase in the 14 February CME speed from 400 to 600 km s −1 , during which it moved from ∼ 28 to ∼ 45 R , whereas the speed of the 15 February CME decelerated to 600 km s −1 from its maximum speed of 1300 km s −1 .…”

Section: D Head-on Collisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 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

Section: D Head-on Collision With Momentum Conservation Constraintsupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: D Head-on Collisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: D Head-on Collisionmentioning

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

show abstract

“…Second, that the Lorentz force driving the CME can sometimes significantly contribute to the CME dynamics up to large distances from the Sun (e.g., Vršnak et al 2004;). Third, CME-CME interactions including the affects of CME preconditioning the solar wind, (e.g., Lugaz et al 2005b;Maričić et al 2014;, which will be taken up in Sect. 9.…”

Section: A Brief Overview Of Cme Kinematicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Physical Processes of CME/ICME Evolution

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As observed in Thomson-scattered white light, coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are manifest as large-scale expulsions of plasma magnetically driven from the corona in the most energetic eruptions from the Sun. It remains a tantalizing mystery as to how these erupting magnetic fields evolve to form the complex structures we observe in the solar wind at Earth. Here, we strive to provide a fresh perspective on the post-eruption and interplanetary evolution of CMEs, focusing on the physical processes that define the many complex interactions of the ejected plasma with its surroundings as it departs the corona and propagates through the heliosphere. We summarize the ways CMEs and their interplanetary CMEs (ICMEs) are rotated, reconfigured, deformed, deflected, decelerated and disguised during their journey through the solar wind. This study then leads to consideration of how structures originating in coronal eruptions can be connected to their far removed interplanetary counterparts. Given that ICMEs are the drivers of most geomagnetic storms (and the sole driver of extreme storms), this work provides a guide to the processes that must be considered in making space weather forecasts from remote observations of the corona.

show abstract

Using Forbush Decreases to Derive the Transit Time of ICMEs Propagating from 1 AU to Mars

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The propagation of 15 interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) from Earth's orbit (1 AU) to Mars (∼1.5 AU) has been studied with their propagation speed estimated from both measurements and simulations. The enhancement of magnetic fields related to ICMEs and their shock fronts causes the so‐called Forbush decrease, which can be detected as a reduction of galactic cosmic rays measured on ground. We have used galactic cosmic ray (GCR) data from in situ measurements at Earth, from both STEREO A and STEREO B as well as GCR measurements by the Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) instrument on board Mars Science Laboratory on the surface of Mars. A set of ICME events has been selected during the periods when Earth (or STEREO A or STEREO B) and Mars locations were nearly aligned on the same side of the Sun in the ecliptic plane (so‐called opposition phase). Such lineups allow us to estimate the ICMEs' transit times between 1 and 1.5 AU by estimating the delay time of the corresponding Forbush decreases measured at each location. We investigate the evolution of their propagation speeds before and after passing Earth's orbit and find that the deceleration of ICMEs due to their interaction with the ambient solar wind may continue beyond 1 AU. We also find a substantial variance of the speed evolution among different events revealing the dynamic and diverse nature of eruptive solar events. Furthermore, the results are compared to simulation data obtained from two CME propagation models, namely the Drag‐Based Model and ENLIL plus cone model.

show abstract

Kinematics of Interacting ICMEs and Related Forbush Decrease: Case Study

Cited by 50 publications

References 51 publications

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

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

The Physical Processes of CME/ICME Evolution

Using Forbush Decreases to Derive the Transit Time of ICMEs Propagating from 1 AU to Mars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About