Coronal Magnetic Structure of Earthbound CMEs and In Situ Comparison

被引:57
|
作者
Palmerio, E. [1 ]
Kilpua, E. K. J. [1 ]
Moestl, C. [2 ]
Bothmer, V. [3 ]
James, A. W. [4 ]
Green, L. M. [4 ]
Isavnin, A. [5 ]
Davies, J. A. [6 ]
Harrison, R. A. [6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Helsinki, Dept Phys, Helsinki, Finland
[2] Austrian Acad Sci, Space Res Inst, Graz, Austria
[3] Georg August Univ Gottingen, Inst Astrophys, Gottingen, Germany
[4] Univ Coll London, Mullard Space Sci Lab, Dorking, Surrey, England
[5] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Ctr Math Plasma Astrophys, Dept Math, Leuven, Belgium
[6] Harwell Campus, Rutherford Appleton Lab, STFC RAL Space, Harwell, Didcot, England
来源
SPACE WEATHER-THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS | 2018年 / 16卷 / 05期
基金
奥地利科学基金会; 欧洲研究理事会;
关键词
coronal mass ejections; corona; solar wind; magnetic field; flux ropes; INTERPLANETARY FLUX ROPES; MASS EJECTIONS; MAGNETOSPHERIC STORMS; FIELD CONFIGURATIONS; CLOUDS; RECONSTRUCTION; HELICITY; PROPAGATION; MISSION; REGION;
D O I
10.1002/2017SW001767
中图分类号
P1 [天文学];
学科分类号
0704 ;
摘要
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 degrees) 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 degrees. 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. Plain Language Summary Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are huge eruptions from the Sun that can cause myriad of space weather effects at Earth. The ability of a CME to drive a geomagnetic storm is given largely by how its magnetic field is configured. Predicting the magnetic structure well before CME arrival at Earth is one of the major goals in space weather forecasting. Palmerio et al. (2018) study 20 CMEs observed both at the Sun and at Earth. They use observations of the solar disc to determine the magnetic structure at the Sun and then compare it with the magnetic structure estimated via magnetic field measurements near Earth. They report that the magnetic structures match closely only in 20% of the events studied. They also estimate the orientations of the CME axes at the Sun and at Earth. They find that 65% of the events change their orientations by less than 90 degrees. They conclude that knowledge of the CME magnetic structure at the Sun is an important factor in space weather forecasting, but the CME evolution after eruption has to be taken into account in order to improve current predictions.
引用
收藏
页码:442 / 460
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] A Comparison of Coronal Mass Ejection Models with Observations for Two Large CMEs Detected During the Whole Heliosphere Interval
    Lin, Chia-Hsien
    Chen, James
    TERRESTRIAL ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC SCIENCES, 2015, 26 (02): : 121 - 134
  • [32] CORONAL HEATING BY DISSIPATION OF MAGNETIC-STRUCTURE
    BERGER, MA
    SPACE SCIENCE REVIEWS, 1994, 68 (1-4) : 3 - 14
  • [33] Propagation Characteristics of CMEs Associated with Magnetic Clouds and Ejecta
    Kim, R. -S.
    Gopalswamy, N.
    Cho, K. -S.
    Moon, Y. -J.
    Yashiro, S.
    SOLAR PHYSICS, 2013, 284 (01) : 77 - 88
  • [34] Coronal Shock Waves, EUV Waves, and Their Relation to CMEs. I. Reconciliation of "EIT Waves", Type II Radio Bursts, and Leading Edges of CMEs
    Grechnev, V. V.
    Uralov, A. M.
    Chertok, I. M.
    Kuzmenko, I. V.
    Afanasyev, A. N.
    Meshalkina, N. S.
    Kalashnikov, S. S.
    Kubo, Y.
    SOLAR PHYSICS, 2011, 273 (02) : 433 - 460
  • [35] MHD Modeling of a Geoeffective Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection with the Magnetic Topology Informed by In Situ Observations
    Provornikova, Elena
    Merkin, Viacheslav G.
    Vourlidas, Angelos
    Malanushenko, Anna
    Gibson, Sarah E.
    Winter, Eric
    Arge, Charles N.
    ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 977 (01)
  • [36] On the influence of CMEs on the global 3-D coronal electron density
    Kramar, M.
    Davila, J.
    Xie, H.
    Antiochos, S.
    ANNALES GEOPHYSICAE, 2011, 29 (06) : 1019 - 1028
  • [37] A Review of Time Series Modelling over Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs)
    Tiwari, Devashish
    Wadhvani, Rajesh
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INVENTIVE SYSTEMS AND CONTROL (ICISC 2018), 2018, : 65 - 70
  • [38] Propagation characteristics of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) in the corona and interplanetary space
    Shen, Fang
    Shen, Chenglong
    Xu, Mengjiao
    Liu, Yousheng
    Feng, Xueshang
    Wang, Yuming
    REVIEWS OF MODERN PLASMA PHYSICS, 2022, 6 (01)
  • [39] STEREO quadrature observations of coronal dimming at the onset of mini-CMEs
    Innes, D. E.
    McIntosh, S. W.
    Pietarila, A.
    ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS, 2010, 517
  • [40] Solar Cycle Variation of Magnetic Flux Ropes in a Quasi-Static Coronal Evolution Model
    Yeates, A. R.
    Constable, J. A.
    Martens, P. C. H.
    SOLAR PHYSICS, 2010, 263 (1-2) : 121 - 134