Heliospheric Evolution of Magnetic Clouds

Interplanetary evolution of eleven magnetic clouds (MCs) recorded by at least two radially aligned spacecraft is studied. The in situ magnetic field measurements are fitted to a cylindrically symmetric Gold-Hoyle force-free uniform-twist flux-rope configuration. The analysis reveals that in a statistical sense the expansion of studied MCs is compatible with self-similar behavior. However, individual events expose a large scatter of expansion rates, ranging from very weak to very strong expansion. Individually, only four events show an expansion rate compatible with the isotropic self-similar expansion. The results indicate that the expansion has to be much stronger when MCs are still close to the Sun than in the studied 0.47 - 4.8 AU distance range. The evolution of the magnetic field strength shows a large deviation from the behavior expected for the case of an isotropic self-similar expansion. In the statistical sense, as well as in most of the individual events, the inferred magnetic field decreases much slower than expected. Only three events show a behavior compatible with a self-similar expansion. There is also a discrepancy between the magnetic field decrease and the increase of the MC size, indicating that magnetic reconnection and geometrical deformations play a significant role in the MC evolution. About half of the events show a decay of the electric current as expected for the self-similar expansion. Statistically, the inferred axial magnetic flux is broadly consistent with it remaining constant. However, events characterized by large magnetic flux show a clear tendency of decreasing flux.Comment: 64 pages, 10 figure

Drag-Based CME Modeling With Heliospheric Images Incorporating Frontal Deformation : ELEvoHI 2.0

The evolution and propagation of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) in interplanetary space is still not well understood. As a consequence, accurate arrival time and arrival speed forecasts are an unsolved problem in space weather research. In this study, we present the ELlipse Evolution model based on HI observations (ELEvoHI) and introduce a deformable front to this model. ELEvoHI relies on heliospheric imagers (HI) observations to obtain the kinematics of a CME. With the newly developed deformable front, the model is able to react to the ambient solar wind conditions during the entire propagation and along the whole front of the CME. To get an estimate of the ambient solar wind conditions, we make use of three different models: Heliospheric Upwind eXtrapolation model (HUX), Heliospheric Upwind eXtrapolation with time dependence model (HUXt), and EUropean Heliospheric FORecasting Information Asset (EUHFORIA). We test the deformable front on a CME first observed in STEREO-A/HI on February 3, 2010 14:49 UT. For this case study, the deformable front provides better estimates of the arrival time and arrival speed than the original version of ELEvoHI using an elliptical front. The new implementation enables us to study the parameters influencing the propagation of the CME not only for the apex, but for the entire front. The evolution of the CME front, especially at the flanks, is highly dependent on the ambient solar wind model used. An additional advantage of the new implementation is given by the possibility to provide estimates of the CME mass.Peer reviewe

Generic magnetic field intensity profiles of interplanetary coronal mass ejections at Mercury, Venus and Earth from superposed epoch analyses

We study interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) measured by probes at different heliocentric distances (0.3-1 AU) to investigate the propagation of ICMEs in the inner heliosphere and determine how the generic features of ICMEs change with heliospheric distance. Using data from the MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER), Venus Express and ACE spacecraft, we analyze with the superposed epoch technique the profiles of ICME substructures, namely, the sheath and the magnetic ejecta. We determine that the median magnetic field magnitude in the sheath correlates well with ICME speeds at 1 AU, and we use this proxy to order the ICMEs at all spacecraft. We then investigate the typical ICME profiles for three categories equivalent to slow, intermediate, and fast ICMEs. Contrary to fast ICMEs, slow ICMEs have a weaker solar wind field at the front and a more symmetric magnetic field profile. We find the asymmetry to be less pronounced at Earth than at Mercury, indicating a relaxation taking place as ICMEs propagate. We also find that the magnetic field intensities in the wake region of the ICMEs do not go back to the pre-ICME solar wind intensities, suggesting that the effects of ICMEs on the ambient solar wind last longer than the duration of the transient event. Such results provide an indication of physical processes that need to be reproduced by numerical simulations of ICME propagation. The samples studied here will be greatly improved by future missions dedicated to the exploration of the inner heliosphere, such as Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter.Peer reviewe

Prediction of the in situ coronal mass ejection rate for solar cycle 25: Implications for Parker Solar Probe in situ observations

The Parker Solar Probe (PSP) and Solar Orbiter missions are designed to make groundbreaking observations of the Sun and interplanetary space within this decade. We show that a particularly interesting in situ observation of an interplanetary coronal mass ejection (ICME) by PSP may arise during close solar flybys ($< 0.1$~AU). During these times, the same magnetic flux rope inside an ICME could be observed in situ by PSP twice, by impacting its frontal part as well as its leg. Investigating the odds of this situation, we forecast the ICME rate in solar cycle 25 based on 2 models for the sunspot number (SSN): (1) the forecast of an expert panel in 2019 (maximum SSN = 115), and (2) a prediction by McIntosh et al. (2020, maximum SSN = 232). We link the SSN to the observed ICME rates in solar cycles 23 and 24 with the Richardson and Cane list and our own ICME catalog, and calculate that between 1 and 7 ICMEs will be observed by PSP at heliocentric distances $< 0.1$ AU until 2025, including 1$\sigma$ uncertainties. We then model the potential flux rope signatures of such a double-crossing event with the semi-empirical 3DCORE flux rope model, showing a telltale elevation of the radial magnetic field component $B_R$, and a sign reversal in the component $B_N$ normal to the solar equator compared to field rotation in the first encounter. This holds considerable promise to determine the structure of CMEs close to their origin in the solar corona.Comment: 11 pages, 6 figures, accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal on 2020 September 1

Why are ELEvoHI CME arrival predictions different if based on STEREO‐A or STEREO‐B heliospheric imager observations?

Accurate forecasting of the arrival time and arrival speed of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) is a unsolved problem in space weather research. In this study, a comparison of the predicted arrival times and speeds for each CME based, independently, on the inputs from the two STEREO vantage points is carried out. We perform hindcasts using ELlipse Evolution model based on Heliospheric Imager observations (ELEvoHI) ensemble modelling. An estimate of the ambient solar wind conditions is obtained by the Wang‐Sheeley‐Arge/Heliospheric Upwind eXtrapolation (WSA/HUX) model combination that serves as input to ELEvoHI. We carefully select 12 CMEs between February 2010 and July 2012 that show clear signatures in both STEREO‐A and STEREO‐B HI time‐elongation maps, that propagate close to the ecliptic plane, and that have corresponding in situ signatures at Earth. We find a mean arrival time difference of 6.5 hrs between predictions from the two different viewpoints, which can reach up to 9.5 hrs for individual CMEs, while the mean arrival speed difference is 63 km s−1. An ambient solar wind with a large speed variance leads to larger differences in the STEREO‐A and STEREO‐B CME arrival time predictions (cc = 0.92). Additionally, we compare the predicted arrivals, from both spacecraft, to the actual in situ arrivals at Earth and find a mean absolute error of 7.5 ± 9.5 hrs for the arrival time and 87 ± 111 km s−1 for the arrival speed. There is no tendency for one spacecraft to provide more accurate arrival predictions than the other