Modeling of CME-driven Shock propagation with ENLIL simulations using flux-rope and cone-model inputs Using observations from STEREO/SECCHI and SOHO/LASCO,

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Global Properties of Heliospheric Disturbances Observed by Interplanetary Scintillation M. Tokumaru, M. Kojima, K. Fujiki, and M. Yamashita (Solar-Terrestrial.

Advertisements

Hot Precursor Ejecta and Other Peculiarities of the 2012 May 17 Ground Level Enhancement Event N. Gopalswamy 2, H. Xie 1,2, N. V. Nitta 3, I. Usoskin 4,

X-ray Emission due to Charge Exchange between Solar Wind and Earth Atmosphere on September Hironori Matsumoto (Kobayashi-Maskawa Institute, Nagoya.

Interaction of coronal mass ejections with large-scale structures N. Gopalswamy, S. Yashiro, H. Xie, S. Akiyama, and P. Mäkelä IHY – ISWI Regional meeting.

Strength of Coronal Mass Ejection- driven Shocks Near the Sun and Its Importance in Predicting Solar Energetic Particle Events Chenglong Shen 1, Yuming.

M. J. Reiner, 1 st STEREO Workshop, March, 2002, Paris.

E. Robbrecht – SIDC- Royal Observatory of Belgium 8 March 2007 The statistical importance of narrow CMEs Open questions to be addressed by SECCHI Eva Robbrecht,

Specification of the broad shell of dense plasma for halo CMEs Xuepu Zhao Stanford University Stanford University EGU Session ST2 Vienna, Austria 25 April.

Heliospheric MHD Modeling of the May 12, 1997 Event MURI Meeting, UCB/SSL, Berkeley, CA, March 1-3, 2004 Dusan Odstrcil University of Colorado/CIRES &

Coronal IP Shocks Nat Gopalswamy NASA/GSFC Elmau CME Workshop, 2003 February 7 Plenary talk Sun Earth.

CME-driven Shocks in White Light Observations SOHO/LASCO C3 – CME May 5 th, 1999 CME-driven Shock We demonstrate that CME-driven shocks: (1) can be detected.

C. May 12, 1997 Interplanetary Event. Ambient Solar Wind Models SAIC 3-D MHD steady state coronal model based on photospheric field maps CU/CIRES-NOAA/SEC.

CISM solar wind metrics M.J. Owens and the CISM Validation and Metrics Team Boston University, Boston MA Abstract. The Center for Space-Weather Modeling.

ZEC Model parameters of Halo CMEs Xuepu Zhao Jan. 18, 2011.

CME Interactions and Particle Acceleration N. Gopalswamy (NASA/GSFC) 2003 February 11 Elmau CME workshop, Group-C Presentation (B. Klecker’s Group)

Coronal Ejecta in October - November of 2003 and predictions of the associated geomagnetic events 1 Big Bear Solar Observatory, New Jersey Institute of.

SSL UC Berkeley 2010 June ACE/SOHO/STEREO/Wind Workshop When and Where are Impulsive SEPs Accelerated? Linghua Wang, Bob Lin, S ä m Krucker Space Sciences.

When will disruptive CMEs impact Earth? Coronagraph observations alone aren’t enough to make the forecast for the most geoeffective halo CMEs. In 2002,

Constraints on Particle Acceleration from Interplanetary Observations R. P. Lin together with L. Wang, S. Krucker at UC Berkeley, G Mason at U. Maryland,

Identifying Interplanetary Shock Parameters in Heliospheric MHD Simulation Results S. A. Ledvina 1, D. Odstrcil 2 and J. G. Luhmann 1 1.Space Sciences.

Ambient Solar Wind Simulation of ambient solar wind driven by modified daily-updated WSA model:  Latitudinal distribution of the outflow velocity at 21.5.

C. May 12, 1997 Interplanetary Event. May 12, 1997 Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection Event CU/CIRES, NOAA/SEC, SAIC, Stanford Tatranska Lomnica, Slovakia,

Coronal and Heliospheric Modeling of the May 12, 1997 MURI Event MURI Project Review, NASA/GSFC, MD, August 5-6, 2003 Dusan Odstrcil University of Colorado/CIRES.

January Nobeyama radioheliograph visit Microwave Signatures of Fast CMEs Nat Gopalswamy NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD USA.

The “cone model” was originally developed by Zhao et al. ~10 (?) years ago in order to interpret the times of arrival of ICME ejecta following SOHO LASCO.

Influence of Time-dependent Processes and Background Magnetic Field on Shock Properties N. Lugaz, I. Roussev and C. Downs Institute for Astronomy Igor.

RT Modelling of CMEs Using WSA- ENLIL Cone Model

Further investigations of the July 23, 2012 extremely rare CME: What if the rare CME was Earth-directed? C. M. Ngwira 1,2, A. Pulkkinen 2, P. Wintoft 3.

Pietro Zucca, Eoin Carley, Shaun Bloomfield, Peter Gallagher

Shock wave formation heights using 2D density and Alfvén maps of the corona ABSTRACT Coronal shock waves can produce decametric radio emission known Type.

Numerical simulations are used to explore the interaction between solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and the structured, ambient global solar wind flow.

Evolution of the 2012 July 12 CME from the Sun to the Earth: Data- Constrained Three-Dimensional MHD Simulations F. Shen 1, C. Shen 2, J. Zhang 3, P. Hess.

A Catalog of Halo Coronal Mass Ejections from SOHO N. Gopalswamy 1, S. Yashiro 2, G. Michalek 3, H. Xie 3, G. Stenborg 2, A. Vourlidas 4, R. A. Howard.

Relation between Type II Bursts and CMEs Inferred from STEREO Observations N. Gopalswamy, W. Thompson, J. Davila, M. Kaiser NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,

RECREATING THE THREE DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURE OF INTERPLANETARY CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS Timothy A. Howard and S. James Tappin AGU Fall Meeting, December,

Arrival time of halo coronal mass ejections In the vicinity of the Earth G. Michalek, N. Gopalswamy, A. Lara, and P.K. Manoharan A&A 423, (2004)

1 Acceleration and Deceleration of Flare/Coronal Mass Ejection Induced Shocks S.T. Wu 1, C.-C. Wu 2, Aihua Wang 1, and K. Liou 3 1 CSPAR, University of.

Extremely Fast Coronal Mass Ejection on 23 July Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland,20723, USA 2 NOAA Space Weather.

Connecting Near-Sun CME flux Ropes to the 1-AU Flux Ropes using the Flare-CME Relationship N. Gopalswamy, H. Xie, S. Yashiro, and S. Akiyama NASA/GSFC.

Stream interface slope near 1 AU and the configuration of the heliospheric current sheet at 2.5 solar radii K.D.C. Simunac STEREO SWG October 2009.

1 SEP “Campaign Events” for SHINE 2003 Question: Can we identify solar/interplanetary factors that drive SEP spectral and compositional variability at.

WG3: Extreme Events Summary N. Gopalswamy & A. Vourlidas.

Effective drift velocity and initiation times of interplanetary type-III radio bursts Dennis K. Haggerty and Edmond C. Roelof The Johns Hopkins University.

Lessons for STEREO - learned from Helios Presented at the STEREO/Solar B Workshop, Rainer Schwenn, MPS Lindau The Helios.

The Space Weather Week Monique Pick LESIA, Observatoire de Paris November 2006.

Improving Space Weather Forecasts Using Coronagraph Data S.P. Plunkett 1, A. Vourlidas 1, D.R. McMullin 2, K. Battams 3, R.C. Colaninno 4 1 Naval Research.

Xie – STEREO SWG – Dublin – March 2010 Low Mass Coronal Mass Ejections Missed by STEREO A/B or LASCO and Associated ICMEs H. Xie 1,2, O. C. St. Cyr 2,

Modeling 3-D Solar Wind Structure Lecture 13. Why is a Heliospheric Model Needed? Space weather forecasts require us to know the solar wind that is interacting.

SEP Event Onsets: Far Backside Solar Sources and the East-West Hemispheric Asymmetry S. W. Kahler AFRL Space Vehicles Directorate, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico,

Heliospheric Simulations of the SHINE Campaign Events SHINE Workshop, Big Sky, MT, June 27 – July 2, 2004 Dusan Odstrcil 1,2 1 University of Colorado/CIRES,

ENLIL Modeling for the interaction event: Effect of Interacting CMEs on SEP Intensity NASA/GSFC H. Xie, N. Gopalswamy, P. Makela, S. Yashiro.

Solar Origins of the October November 2003 Extreme Events N. Gopalswamy NASA/GSFC SHINE 2004 WG3 Thursday, June 1 Big Sky, Montana Photo.

State of NOAA-SEC/CIRES STEREO Heliospheric Models STEREO SWG Meeting, NOAA/SEC, Boulder, CO, March 22, 2004 Dusan Odstrcil University of Colorado/CIRES.

1 Pruning of Ensemble CME modeling using Interplanetary Scintillation and Heliospheric Imager Observations A. Taktakishvili, M. L. Mays, L. Rastaetter,

Complexity of Solar Eruptions Nat Gopalswamy, NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, MD

Interplanetary proton and electron enhancements associated with radio-loud and radio-quiet CME-driven shocks P. Mäkelä 1,2, N. Gopalswamy 2, H. Xie 1,2,

Detecting, forecasting and modeling of the 2002/04/17 halo CME Heliophysics Summer School 1.

CME-driven Shocks in White Light Observations Verónica Ontiveros National University of Mexico, MEXICO George Mason University,USA Angelos Vourlidas Naval.

Driving 3D-MHD codes Using the UCSD Tomography

T. Manuel-Hernández, E. Aguilar-Rodriguez and A. Gonzalez-Esparza

ICME in the Solar Wind from STEL IPS Observations

Lecture 12 The Importance of Accurate Solar Wind Measurements

SWAVES-like radio instrument?

N. Gopalswamy, H. Xie, S. Akiyama, P. Mäkelä, S. Yashiro, I. Usoskin

Orientations of Halo CMEs and Magnetic Clouds

Forecasting the arrival time of the CME’s shock at the Earth

SMALL SEP EVENTS WITH METRIC TYPE II RADIO BURSTS

Solar Sources of Wide Coronal Mass Ejections during the Ascending Phase of Cycle 24 Sachiko Akiyama1,2, Nat Gopalswamy2, Seiji Yashiro1,2 , and Pertti.

Phillip Hess Jie Zhang, Dusan Odstrcil

Flux Rope from Eruption Data (FRED) and its Interplanetary Counterpart

Presentation transcript:

Modeling of CME-driven Shock propagation with ENLIL simulations using flux-rope and cone-model inputs Using observations from STEREO/SECCHI and SOHO/LASCO, combined with WSA-Cone-ENLIL model simulations, we study the propagation and evolution of 17 CME-driven shock from Sun to Earth. We use flux-rope (FR) and cone-model fitting outputs of V cme and width as spherical cloud speed and angular width inputs for the ENLIL model. We compared the simulated the shock arrival times T enlil from two sets of inputs with the observed shock time by Wind T obs. The results show that the predictions from ENLIL using FR-fit inputs are generally better those using cone- model fit inputs. However, both model inputs give decent prediction results. Overall, the FR-model fit to multi-view observations provides more accurate values of CME actual speeds and widths. There is no significant differences between the mean fit CME speed and width from two models. The difference of the mean speed and the mean width from two models are 45 km/s and 5°, respectively, and the mean prediction errors for the FR and cone-model are 5.4 hours and 6.1 hours. It is found that for the slow CME with speeds < 900 km/s, the mean prediction errors are improved to 4.1 hours (FR-fit) and 5.0 hours (Cone-fit) with dcld = 2 ( density enhancement factor of cloud to fast solar wind) compared to default dcld of 4. In addition, we study the predictions from the kmTII method, which is based on the kilometric Type II radio emissions measured by Wind/WAVES (Cremades, et al., 2007). It is found that the kmTII predictions can be improved by using the ENLIL model plasma density upstream the modeled CME/shock (compared to using the average density at 1 AU of n 0 = 7.2 cm -3 ). H. Xie 1,2, C. St Cyr 2, N. Gopalswamy 2, and D. Odstrcil 2,3 1 Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.; 2 NASA-GSFC; and ; 3 George Mason University Difference of prediction error:  err = |Err_FR – Err_cone| as function of input speed difference  V fit = |Vfr - Vcone|:  err = ~ *  V fit. In average, an input CME speed difference of 100 km/s results in a prediction error difference of 3.46 hours. Note that, however, relatively large scattering exists for individual events. The selected event list includes earthward halo CMEs from 2010 to March 2012 with Vcme > 500 km/s. The table lists the shock date and time, CME date and time, source location, FR-fit and cone-fit speed and half width, ENLIL prediction error with two model fits: Err_f and Err_c, dcld, and the kmTII prediction errors for six kmTII CMEs, Err_km1 and Err_km2, using the ENLIL model density, n0_enlil, and the average solar wind plasma density, n0_avg, at 1 AU respectively. The mean Err_km1 = 4.88 hrs and mean Err_km2 = 6.0 hrs. Top panels show that the mean cone-fit CME speed Vcone is slightly larger than the mean FR-fit speed Vfr but max( Vcone – Vfr ) can reach 601 km/s. Bottom panels show that the mean half width  cone is slightly larger than  fr and max(  cone –  fr ) = 13 . Prediction error DT= Tenlil-Tobs. Overall, the errors using cone-model fit inputs (Err_cone) are larger than those using FR-fit inputs (Err_FR). Comparison of Cone-model and FR-model fitting: V sky vs. V fit. Red and blue diamonds denote Vfr and Vcone, over- plotted with solid line V fit =V sky. Where V sky and V fit are the sky-plane speed and model fit Speed of the CMEs. Type II dynamic spectrum detected by the Wind/Waves on January Red cross symbols in the figure mark the heights from COR2 observations and the ENLIL simulation results, with a simple density model n = n 0 /r 2 (n 0 is the plasma density at 1 AU in units of cm −3 ) we have r(t) = (9/18)sqrt(n 0 )/f(t), r(t) in units of AU. White X symbols are selected measurement points in the spectrum, with which we derive the shock speed to predict the shock arrival time: Vsh = (9/18) sqrt (n 0 ) × slope(1/f) × 1.5e8 (km/ s). ShkdateTimeCMEdateTimeLoc_scFR-fitCone-fitErr_fErr-cdcldErr_km1Err_km2 Vw/2V (n0_enlil)(n0_avg) (UT) (km/s)(deg)(km/s)(deg)(hr) 2 02/11/1000:0002/07/1002:45N21E n/a 04/05/1007:5804/03/1010:34S25W n/a 02/15/1017:2802/12/1011:50N21E n/a 04/11/1012:1804/08/1003:15N24E n/a 05/28/1002:0005/24/1013:05S15W n/a 02/18/1100:4002/15/1102:36S21W n/a 06/23/1102:1806/21/1102:05N16W n/a 07/11/1108:0507/09/1100:15S17E n/a 08/04/1121:1008/02/1106:05N14W n/a 08/05/1117:2308/04/1104:05N19W /09/1111:4909/06/1122:22N14W /12/1105:1011/09/1113:21N26E n/a 01/22/1205:3301/19/1213:44N33E /24/1214:3501/23/1203:38N33W /08/1210:3003/07/1200:02N17E /11/1212:2903/09/1203:22N17W n/a 03/12/1208:3003/10/1217:15N17W