The Interaction of Successive Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

Lugaz, Noé; Temmer, Manuela; Wang, Yuming; Farrugia, Charles J.

doi:10.1007/978-94-024-1570-4_5

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 259 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The short quiet period around 05:30—as noted in the auroral observations by Douglass ()—followed by the fifth substorm may indicate that a second CME had caught up with the first, compressing northward IMF in the tail of the first CME, and perhaps with additional southward IMF in the leading part of the second CME. Such a CME‐CME interaction could also have helped to sustain CME speed and hence added to the geoeffectiveness of these CMEs (Liu et al, ; Lugaz et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Great Storm of May 1921: An Exemplar of a Dangerous Space Weather Event

Hapgood

2019

Space Weather

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We reconstruct the timeline of the extreme space weather event of May 1921, reviewing a wealth of reports from scientific literature, databases, newspaper reports, and reports by historians and astronomers. A series of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) bombarded Earth between 13 and 16 May, as shown by a series of sudden commencements observed across the global network of magnetometers. These CMEs produced three major periods of geomagnetic activity. The first period followed the arrival of two CMEs on 13 May. These may have cleared much density from the inner heliosphere, enabling a subsequent CME to travel quickly to Earth and cause intense activity. Continuing moderate magnetic activity following the first period may also have preconditioned the magnetosphere so it responded strongly to that later CME. This arrived late on 14 May, driving a short period of very intense activity early on 15 May, including technological impacts indicative of strong geoelectric fields. Another CME arrived early on 16 May, driving intense activity similar to that on 13 May. We show how these impacts fit with scientific observations to give a timeline that can be used in worst‐case studies/benchmarks. We also show that some impacts were probably coincidental with the storm, but due to more prosaic faults. This sequence of preconditioning, intense geoelectric fields, and their impacts, plus coincidental faults, makes the 1921 event an excellent basis for building space weather scenarios. Such scenarios are vital scientific input to the development and implementation of policies for mitigation of severe space weather.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Great Storm of May 1921: An Exemplar of a Dangerous Space Weather Event

Hapgood

2019

Space Weather

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the clear magnetic ejecta signatures, quite different from the possible in situ manifestations of CME-CME interactions (see Lugaz et al, 2017). The coronal speed of the two CMEs also make their interaction highly unlikely.…”

Section: Figure 12mentioning

confidence: 90%

Radial Evolution of Coronal Mass Ejections Between MESSENGER, Venus Express, STEREO, and L1: Catalog and Analysis

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our knowledge of the properties of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) in the inner heliosphere is constrained by the relative lack of plasma observations between the Sun and 1 AU. In this work, we present a comprehensive catalog of 47 CMEs measured in situ measurements by two or more radially aligned spacecraft (MESSENGER, Venus Express, STEREO, Wind/ACE). We estimate the CME impact speeds at Mercury and Venus using a drag-based model and present an average propagation profile of CMEs (speed and deceleration/acceleration) in the inner heliosphere. We find that CME deceleration continues past Mercury's orbit but most of the deceleration occurs between the Sun and Mercury. We examine the exponential decrease of the maximum magnetic field strength in the CME with heliocentric distance using two approaches: a modified statistical method and analysis from individual conjunction events. Findings from both the approaches are on average consistent with previous studies but show significant event-to-event variability. We also find the expansion of the CME sheath to be well fit by a linear function. However, we observe the average sheath duration and its increase to be fairly independent of the initial CME speed, contradicting commonly held knowledge that slower CMEs drive larger sheaths. We also present an analysis of the 3 November 2011 CME observed in longitudinal conjunction between MESSENGER, Venus Express, and STEREO-B focusing on the expansion of the CME and its correlation with the exponential falloff of the maximum magnetic field strength in the ejecta.

show abstract

“…Distortions arising from solar wind interactions are more pronounced when the flow momentum exceeds the flux rope's magnetic tension force, which resists distortion. ICME morphology and propagation may also be significantly altered when ICMEs interact with each other (e.g., Lugaz et al, ; Lugaz et al, ). Magnetic reconnection can also erode ICME field structure by varying degrees in the corona and interplanetary space (e.g., Dasso et al, ; Ruffenach et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐Similarity of ICME Flux Ropes: Observations by Radially Aligned Spacecraft in the Inner Heliosphere

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) are a significant feature of the heliospheric environment and the primary cause of adverse space weather at the Earth. ICME propagation and the evolution of ICME magnetic field structure during propagation are still not fully understood. We analyze the magnetic field structures of 18 ICME magnetic flux ropes observed by radially aligned spacecraft in the inner heliosphere. Similarity in the underlying flux rope structures is determined through the application of a simple technique that maps the magnetic field profile from one spacecraft to the other. In many cases, the flux ropes show very strong underlying similarities at the different spacecraft. The mapping technique reveals similarities that are not readily apparent in the unmapped data and is a useful tool when determining whether magnetic field time series observed at different spacecraft are associated with the same ICME. Lundquist fitting has been applied to the flux ropes, and the rope orientations have been determined; macroscale differences in the profiles at the aligned spacecraft may be ascribed to differences in flux rope orientation. Assuming that the same region of the ICME was observed by the aligned spacecraft in each case, the fitting indicates some weak tendency for the rope axes to reduce in inclination relative to the solar equatorial plane and to align with the solar east‐west direction with heliocentric distance.

show abstract

The Interaction of Successive Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

Cited by 7 publications

References 259 publications

The Great Storm of May 1921: An Exemplar of a Dangerous Space Weather Event

The Great Storm of May 1921: An Exemplar of a Dangerous Space Weather Event

Radial Evolution of Coronal Mass Ejections Between MESSENGER, Venus Express, STEREO, and L1: Catalog and Analysis

Self‐Similarity of ICME Flux Ropes: Observations by Radially Aligned Spacecraft in the Inner Heliosphere

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About