On the utility of flux rope models for CME magnetic structure below 30<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" altimg="si146.svg"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>⊙</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>

Lynch, B. J.; Al-Haddad, Nada; Yu, Wenyuan; Palmerio, Erika; Lugaz, Noé

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2022.05.004

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the case investigated here, one may have expected better agreement due to the measurements being taken significantly closer to the Sun than 1 au, i.e., where less CME evolution has occurred. However, Lynch et al (2022) showed that flux rope fitting models perform generally worse for flank encounters even as close as 10-30 R e using results from a magnetohydrodynamic model, which are characterized by smoother fields and do not fully reproduce the highly turbulent nature of the solar wind. Nevertheless, most fitting techniques (with the notable exception of the FF model at Parker) recovered a highinclination flux rope, in agreement with GCS reconstruction results based on remote-sensing coronagraph observations (see Figure 3) and suggesting that the CME as a whole largely maintained its orientation as it traveled to ∼0.35 au.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If a different flux rope model were used that fit the B R component with a more linear profile (such as the uniformtwist geometry; e.g., Farrugia et al 1999), there could perhaps be less disagreement between the orientations obtained for each spacecraft. Nevertheless, flank encounter trajectories tend to be especially challenging for all in situ flux rope models (see the "problematic cases" discussed by Lynch et al 2022). Overall, the most important conclusion to draw is that each of the flux rope models, when considered individually, returns very different "best-fit" parameter sets for the large-scale structure observed at Bepi and Parker, reflecting the significant differences in the (local) magnetic field time series measured within the ejecta by each spacecraft.…”

Section: Magnetic Ejectamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the Mesoscale Structure of Coronal Mass Ejections at Mercury’s Orbit: BepiColombo and Parker Solar Probe Observations

Palmerio,

Carcaboso,

Khoo

et al. 2024

ApJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On 2022 February 15, an impressive filament eruption was observed off the solar eastern limb from three remote-sensing viewpoints, namely, Earth, STEREO-A, and Solar Orbiter. In addition to representing the most-distant observed filament at extreme ultraviolet wavelengths—captured by Solar Orbiter's field of view extending to above 6 R ⊙—this event was also associated with the release of a fast (∼2200 km s−1) coronal mass ejection (CME) that was directed toward BepiColombo and Parker Solar Probe. These two probes were separated by 2° in latitude, 4° in longitude, and 0.03 au in radial distance around the time of the CME-driven shock arrival in situ. The relative proximity of the two probes to each other and the Sun (∼0.35 au) allows us to study the mesoscale structure of CMEs at Mercury's orbit for the first time. We analyze similarities and differences in the main CME-related structures measured at the two locations, namely, the interplanetary shock, the sheath region, and the magnetic ejecta. We find that, despite the separation between the two spacecraft being well within the typical uncertainties associated with determination of CME geometric parameters from remote-sensing observations, the two sets of in situ measurements display some profound differences that make understanding the overall 3D CME structure particularly challenging. Finally, we discuss our findings within the context of space weather at Mercury's distance and in terms of the need to investigate solar transients via spacecraft constellations with small separations, which has been gaining significant attention during recent years.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Magnetic Ejectamentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Mesoscale Structure of Coronal Mass Ejections at Mercury’s Orbit: BepiColombo and Parker Solar Probe Observations

Palmerio,

Carcaboso,

Khoo

et al. 2024

ApJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Multi-spacecraft validations and comparisons to modeled-versus-observed space weather responses at different locations will also be a valuable addition to future OSPREI investigations. In fact, recent analyses of MHD simulation data have shown that internal CME structures can yield substantially different in-situ profiles depending on the observational sampling trajectories and radial distances (e.g., Scolini et al 2021;Lynch et al 2022), thus highlighting the need for multi-spacecraft observations that can provide the larger-scale heliospheric CME context and/or additional modeling constraints.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling CME encounters at Parker Solar Probe with OSPREI: Dependence on photospheric and coronal conditions

Ledvina¹,

Palmerio²,

Kay³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are eruptions of plasma from the Sun that travel through interplanetary space and may encounter Earth. CMEs often enclose a magnetic flux rope (MFR), the orientation of which largely determines the CME's geoeffectiveness. Current operational CME models do not model MFRs, but a number of research ones do, including the Open Solar Physics Rapid Ensemble Information (OSPREI) model. Aims. We report the sensitivity of OSPREI to a range of user-selected photospheric and coronal conditions. Methods. We model four separate CMEs observed in situ by Parker Solar Probe (PSP). We vary the input photospheric conditions using four input magnetograms (HMI Synchronic, HMI Synoptic, GONG Synoptic Zero-Point Corrected, and GONG ADAPT). To vary the coronal field reconstruction, we employ the Potential-Field Source-Surface (PFSS) model and we vary its source-surface height in the range 1.5-3.0 R with 0.1 R increments. Results. We find that both the input magnetogram and PFSS source surface often affect the evolution of the CME as it propagates through the Sun's corona into interplanetary space, and therefore the accuracy of the MFR prediction compared to in-situ data at PSP. There is no obvious best combination of input magnetogram and PFSS source surface height. Conclusions. The OSPREI model is moderately sensitive to the input photospheric and coronal conditions. Based on where the source region of the CME is located on the Sun, there may be best practices when selecting an input magnetogram to use.

show abstract

“…Recent solar missions (such as PSP and Solar Orbiter) as well as future ones (such as PUNCH and Vigil) will even provide more data to add better constraints on the features of the inner heliosphere and the observed ICMEs. Finally, an important step would be to include the CME initialization inside the solar corona, in order to take into account the impact of the structures close to the Sun on the early propagation of the CME (similar to Lynch et al 2022 field (in the meridional plane) for positive and negative handedness. It can be linked to the sign of the magnetic helicity of the originating active region, which is conserved over time (Berger 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of the Solar Activity on the Propagation of ICMEs: Simulations of Hydro, Magnetic and Median ICMEs at the Minimum and Maximum of Activity

Perri,

Schmieder,

Démoulin

et al. 2023

ApJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The propagation of interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) in the heliosphere is influenced by many physical phenomena, related to the internal structure of the ICME and its interaction with the ambient solar wind and magnetic field. As the solar magnetic field is modulated by the 11 yr dynamo cycle, our goal is to perform a theoretical exploratory study to assess the difference of propagation of an ICME in typical minimum and maximum activity backgrounds. We define a median representative CME at 0.1 au, using both observations and numerical simulations, and describe it using a spheromak model. We use the heliospheric propagator EUropean Heliospheric FORecasting Information Asset to inject the same ICME in two different background wind environments. We then study how the environment and the internal CME structure impact the propagation of the ICME toward Earth, by comparison with an unmagnetized CME. At minimum of activity, the structure of the heliosphere around the ecliptic causes the ICME to slow down, creating a delay with the polar parts of the ejecta. This delay is more important if the ICME is faster. At maximum of activity, a southern coronal hole causes a northward deflection. For these cases, we always find that the ICME at the maximum of activity arrives first, while the ICME at the minimum of activity is actually more geoeffective. The sign of the helicity of the ICME is also a crucial parameter, but at the minimum of activity only, since it affects the magnetic profile and the arrival time up to 8 hr.

show abstract

On the utility of flux rope models for CME magnetic structure below 30R⊙

Cited by 7 publications

References 101 publications

On the Mesoscale Structure of Coronal Mass Ejections at Mercury’s Orbit: BepiColombo and Parker Solar Probe Observations

On the Mesoscale Structure of Coronal Mass Ejections at Mercury’s Orbit: BepiColombo and Parker Solar Probe Observations

Modeling CME encounters at Parker Solar Probe with OSPREI: Dependence on photospheric and coronal conditions

Impact of the Solar Activity on the Propagation of ICMEs: Simulations of Hydro, Magnetic and Median ICMEs at the Minimum and Maximum of Activity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About