1 / 17

On the S pace W eather R esponse of Coronal M ass E jections and Their S heath R egions

On the S pace W eather R esponse of Coronal M ass E jections and Their S heath R egions. Emilia Kilpua Department of Physics, University of Helsinki (Emilia.Kilpua@helsinki.fi). Outline CME structures Sheath regions Flux ropes

emilie
Download Presentation

On the S pace W eather R esponse of Coronal M ass E jections and Their S heath R egions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On the Space Weather Response of Coronal Mass Ejections and Their Sheath Regions Emilia Kilpua Department of Physics, University of Helsinki (Emilia.Kilpua@helsinki.fi)

  2. Outline • CME structures • Sheath regions • Flux ropes • Future challenges to predict geomagnetic response of coronal mass ejections (long-term predictions)

  3. CMEs drive majority of intense space weather disturbances A CME has two main geoeffective structures that have fundamentally different origin, distinct solar wind characteristics and different magnetospheric responses (e.g., Huttunen et al., JGR, 2002; Huttunen and Koskinen, Ann. Geophys., 2004; Kilpua et al., Ann. Geophys., 2013; Yermolaev et al., JGR 2013; Hietala et al., GRL, 2014,

  4. Main CME substructures (many studies do not separate) • ejecta(often flux rope) • - smooth changes • - erupted solar flux rope • sheath region • - turbulent, compressed • - overlying coronal arcades • - pile-up&expansion sheath → different ways to predict their properties A CME has two main geoeffective structures that have fundamentally different origin, distinct solar wind characteristics and different magnetospheric responses (e.g., Huttunen et al., JGR, 2002; Huttunen and Koskinen, Ann. Geophys., 2004; Kilpua et al., Ann. Geophys., 2013; Hietala et al., GRL, 2014)

  5. Space weather response • auroral latitudes • large-scale convection • ring current • Van Allen belts CME has two main geoeffective structures that have fundamentally different origin, distinct solar wind characteristics and different magnetospheric responses (e.g., Huttunen et al., JGR, 2002; Huttunen and Koskinen, Ann. Geophys., 2004; Kilpua et al., Ann. Geophys., 2013; Hietala et al., GRL, 2014)

  6. magnetic field north-south component, L1 Bz ULF sheath flux rope Pdyn ULF 1997-2002 Dst < -100 nT Dst < -150 nT Dst < -200 nT Huttunen and Koskinen, 2004 Hietala et al., GRL, 2014

  7. A) low-inclined flux ropes Bz: North → South (NS) Bz: South → North (SN) - dominant type changes with solar cycle (Bothmer and Schwenn, 1998; Li et al., 2011) - space weather predictions needs type for individual events 45 low-inclined FRs (1995-1999 & 2006-2010) SN: meanDst -74 nT NS: meanDst -79 nT → equally geoeffectivity! Kilpua et al., Sol Phys, 2013 ambient solar wind modifies greatly the response! shock high-speed stream follows geoeff (%)

  8. B) high-inclined flux ropes Bz: South (S) Bz: North (N) • N-type FRs not geoeffective, S-type FRs produce strong storms • (Huttunen et al., 2005, Kilpua et al., 2013) FRs 1996-2003 Huttunen et al., 2005 → determination of the FR-type decisive!

  9. There is no practical method to predict FR structure in advance - FR magnetic field cannot be observed directly - Estimations based on erupting filament [e.g., McAllister, 2001] and sigmoidal structures [e.g., Pevtsovet al., 1997, Kliem&Green, 2014] - no consistent statistical study that would connect solar and in-situ observations Kliem&Green, 2014

  10. BUT! Even if eruptive FR structure could be predicted it can change considerably during the travel from Sun to Earth Deflection, rotation, deformation (e.g. Wang et al., 2004, Cremades et al., 2005; Plunkett et al., 2001, Yurchyshyn, 2008) Vourlidas et al., ApJ, 2011 Kilpua et al., Ann. Geophys., 2011

  11. new tool to investigate FR 3-D geometrical evolution from Sun to Earth Isavnin et al., Sol. Phys., 2013&2014

  12. rotation New tool to investigate FR geometrical evolution from Sun to Earth Isavnin et al., Sol. Phys., 2013&2014

  13. New tool to investigate FR geometrical evolution from Sun to Earth Isavnin et al., Sol. Phys., 2013&2014 deflection, latitude

  14. New tool to investigate FR geometrical evolution from Sun to Earth Isavnin et al., Sol. Phys., 2013&2014 • → • fastest changes occur • within 1-30 RS • significant part of the • evolution occurs > 30 RS deflection, longitude

  15. Things are actually more complicated…. 5(6)-part CME in-situ 1 2 3 4 5 1. shock 2. sheath 3. front region 4. flux rope (MC) 5. back region (6. density blob) separatednear the Sun or in IP space? Kilpua et al., Ann. Geophys., 2014 ”5-part CME” ? Vourlidas et al., 2012

  16. Extreme storms • produced by strong and super-fast interacting CMEs? • (e.g., Liu et al., Nature Communications, 2014)

  17. (some) Future Challenges • eruptive flux rope structure • early flux rope evolution • heliospheric flux rope evolution • CME-CME interaction, interaction with ambient SW • Predict the structure of the turbulent sheath region • Bring solar, interplanetary and magnetospheric • communities together to improve space weather • predictions

More Related