2011
DOI: 10.1007/s11207-011-9763-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Correlation Analyses Between the Characteristic Times of Gradual Solar Energetic Particle Events and the Properties of Associated Coronal Mass Ejections

Abstract: It is generally believed that gradual solar energetic particles (SEPs) are accelerated by shocks associated with coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Using an ice-cream cone model, the radial speed and angular width of 95 CMEs associated with SEP events during 1998 -2002 are calculated from SOHO/LASCO observations. Then, we investigate the relationships between the kinematic properties of these CMEs and the characteristic times of the intensity-time profile of their accompanied SEP events observed at 1 AU. These cha… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As with any coronagraph observations, significant plane of the sky projection effects occur in the speed (and also width) if the CME does not originate near the limb of the Sun relative to the observing spacecraft. Cone models have been developed to help correct for projection (e.g., Howard et al, 1982;Zhao, Plunkett and Liu, 2002;Xie, Ofman and Lawrence, 2004;Xue, Wang and Dou, 2005;Michalek, Gopalswamy and Yashiro, 2007;Na et al, 2013;Nicewicz and Michalek, 2014, and references therein) but have not been widely used in SEP studies (see however, Pan et al, 2011).…”
Section: Cme Catalogsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As with any coronagraph observations, significant plane of the sky projection effects occur in the speed (and also width) if the CME does not originate near the limb of the Sun relative to the observing spacecraft. Cone models have been developed to help correct for projection (e.g., Howard et al, 1982;Zhao, Plunkett and Liu, 2002;Xie, Ofman and Lawrence, 2004;Xue, Wang and Dou, 2005;Michalek, Gopalswamy and Yashiro, 2007;Na et al, 2013;Nicewicz and Michalek, 2014, and references therein) but have not been widely used in SEP studies (see however, Pan et al, 2011).…”
Section: Cme Catalogsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4). Secondary peaks correspond to impulsive SEP events, with rise times 3 h, and gradual ones, with rise times~33 h. An extremely gradual event exhibited a rise time of up to~55 h. As expected by theoretical (e.g., Mikić & Lee, 2006) and observational (e.g., Pan et al, 2011) works, rise times statistically decrease for increasingly westward heliographic source locations. Figure 22 a also highlights this; d all SEP events in our sample invariably correspond to major solar eruptions, associated with at least M-class flares and fast CMEs with average speed 1810 ± 750 km/s ( Table 3).…”
Section: Summary Conclusion and Outlookmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…Particles that arrive later, even well before the peak, may undergo scattering, possibly by irregularities in the magnetic field, turbulence, etc., in the corona and interplanetary space. Past studies either showed no correlation (Kahler 2005;Pan et al 2011) or a weak inverse correlation (Kahler 2013) between TO and v CM E . We followed Kahler (2013) in analyzing the grouping of v CM E into four subgroups and calculating median values-here we showed averages instead of medians.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…In this paper, we presented the statistical trends found in a large number of events observed at GOES, STEREO-A and STEREO-B. Moreover, we analyzed mostly solar cycle 24 events, whereas similar statistical studies dealt with solar cycle 23 events (e.g., Kahler 2005Kahler , 2013Pan et al 2011) or partially included solar cycle 24 events (e.g., Papaioannou et al 2016). Another difference from previous studies of SEP timescales is that we used the CME source longitude relative to the footpoint of the Parker spiral (∆Φ) rather than to the observer.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%