1 / 38

Evolution of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections for Different Solar Wind Conditions

Departamento de Física Juan José Giambiagi . Evolution of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections for Different Solar Wind Conditions. Dasso S. 1,2 , Gulisano A.M. 1 , Demoulin P. 3 , Ruiz M.E. 1 & Marsch E. 4

analise
Télécharger la présentation

Evolution of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections for Different Solar Wind Conditions

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. Departamento de FísicaJuan José Giambiagi Evolution of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejectionsfor Different Solar Wind Conditions Dasso S.1,2, Gulisano A.M.1, Demoulin P.3,Ruiz M.E.1& Marsch E.4 1Instituto de Astronomía y Física del Espacio (IAFE), Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), Argentina 2 Departamento de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, UBA, Argentina 3Observatoire de Paris, LESIA, Meudon, France 4Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Lindau, Germany International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil

  2. An ICME is an expanding flux rope in the SW How much can be affectedits expansion by local environment conditions? Outline Expansion from analysis of different ICMEs at different solar distances D Expansion fromanalysis of a MC at fixed D (non-dimensional rate along S/C path) Comparison of expansion for different SW conditions: -MC in a clean SW / Overtaken MC by fast SW Anisotropy of expansion (axial and radial expansion) International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil

  3. Evolution of ICMEs: key parameters from different events observed at different solar distances D (good for global expansion) [From Liu et al., Plan. & Space Sci. 2005] S~D0.9, Np~D-2.3, T~D-0.3, B~D-1.4 Considering other studies (more events): S~D0.8±0.1[e.g., Bothmer & Schwenn ‘98; Leitner et al. JGR‘07] Is the large dispersion due to the evolution in different ambients? International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil

  4. NOT PERTURBED Example of MC not perturbed, (~ linear velocity profile for full MC) Vx Vc t Example of MC perturbed at the rear(perturbed profile of the velocity) PERTURBED

  5. Dimensionless local expansion coefficient [Demoulin et al., SolPhys, 2008; Demoulin & Dasso, A&A, 2009; Gulisano et al., A&A, in press 2009] Globally: S=S0(D/D0)m use dS/dtcan't use dS/dt S=S0(D/D0) Helios 1&2 MCs For Not Perturbed Vx ~ dS/dt = mVc S/D, = D Vx /(t Vc2) and S~t Vc =>N~ m For Perturbed  = D Vx /(tVc2) ~D Vx/(SVc) =>O~D0 mD1-m/(S0Vc)Vx NoPerturbed ~ 0.9 Not Perturbed MCs present no correlation, while Perturbedones are correlated

  6. Black solid line corresponds to the expected global expansion S ~ Dm Green line to an example of Not Perturbed MC Blue dashed line to one possible example of Perturbed MC International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil

  7. Radial and axial expansion: different expansion rates? Back !! Radial expansion due to solar wind pressure decay Axial expansion due to connectivity to the Sun (self-similar: m=1) Adapted from [Zurbuchen & Richardson, Space Science Rev, 2006] International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil

  8. Modelling the magnetic flux rope From in situ observed B possible to ‘orient’ the flux rope & compare with models  e.g., MV International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil

  9. We preliminary found a nearly isotropic expansion cos()=zcloud•xGSE Helios 1 & 2 MCs International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil

  10. Summary and Conclusions •Magnetic Clouds are expanding structures as consequence of the decrease of the solar wind pressure (ambient) and connectivity to the Sun •A non-dimensional local expansion rate (=VD/(tVc2)) can be defined and determined from single point (1 S/C) in situ observations •For no-overtakenMCs, the observed local expansion () was in a full agreement with the global expansion (m~0.8±0.1) •Local expansion can be significantly affected by flows that overtake MCs: SW-cloud or cloud-cloud interactions [e.g. Dasso et al., JGR’09] •Anisotropy in MC expansion rates is expected (axial and radial expansion are due to very different physical mechanisms) •However, we preliminary (work in progress) found that is nearly isotropic (statistically supporting connectivity to the Sun of MC legs for our sample) Thank you very much for your attention !!! International Living With a Star (ILWS), October 4-9, 2009, Ubatuba, Brazil

  11. Additional Slides

  12. B~D-1.8 Better determination of exponents (more events): S~D0.8±0.1[e.g., Bothmer & Schwenn ‘98; Leitner et al. JGR‘07] Improvements Moving boundary model [Demoulin & Dasso A&A‘09]: For SW pressure decay as Psw(D)~D-np, global expansion S~ Dnp/4 ~ D0.7 [Demoulin talk SW12] Different MCs observed at different solar distances D (good for global expansion) Modeling evolution of MCs from assuming: (i) conservation of magnetic fluxes and H (ii) isotropic self-similar expansion np~D-2.8 S~D0.97 S~D, np~D-3, B~D-2 Large uncertainties (only a few observed events) [From Kumar & Rust, JGR 1996] Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France

  13. Non-dimensional expansion rate for local expansion (no model is assumed) [Demoulin et al., Sol Phys’08; Gulisano et al., poster SW12] Based on observations: S(D)~S0 (D/D0)m, If dS/dt~V then ~m [Demoulin talk SW12] Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France Learning from 1 S/C observations (fixed D) of one event (model and ) From Nakwacki et al. [COLAGE’07, Mexico] Expansion from fitting model to Vx t [e.g., Farrugia et al., JGR’95; Nakwacki et al., JASTP’08] V T≈3-3.3 days <Vx,cloud>=-794km/s Radial expansion rate: dR/dt  (0.03-0.045) AU/day tc: center V(tc)

  14. Same event observed at 1AU and 5.4AU [see more in Nakwacki et al., poster SW12] ACE Ulysses SACE(D=1AU)=0.22AU ACE=0.70 SUlysses(D=5.4AU)=0.63AU Ulysses=0.65 Observations according with the expected increment of size: Sexpected,Ulysses ~SACE 5.4 ~ [0.62-0.72]AU Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France

  15. Pealing flux ropes via magnetic reconnection By,cloud Oct 20, 01:36UT Oct 19, 07:26UT Oct 19, 17:37UT Cancelation of Fy,cloud at a magnetic discontinuity [from Dasso et al., A&A 2006] y Cumulative flux Fy/L x Xin From B=0 and invariance of B along the main axis of the cloud (valid to a general 2D-shape!): Different end boundaries chosen by previous authors [Lepping et al., JGR’97; Larson et al., GRL’97; Janoo et al., JGR’98] Start: Oct 18, 1995 at 18:58UT

  16. Expansion of a partially pealed flux rope that is overtaken by SW Back The flux rope was partially pealed from its front. However, the ‘back’ still ~ as before reconnection, showing ~ properties of a flux rope and not of SW OVERTAKEN MC Back! =0.44±0.1 < 0.7 Adapted from [Zurbuchen & Richardson, Space Science Rev, 2006] Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France

  17. Example with reconnection in the MC front, but non-overtaken ~18hs MC Reconnected flux: ~ 20%-30% of total [Dasso et al., Sol Phys, ‘07] MC This event: =0.7±0.1 Same as typical value for no overtaken MCs without reconnection[See Gulisano et al., poster SW12; Demoulin talk SW12] Thus, typical value of for no overtaken events, even for reconnection conditions! size~0.26AU

  18. Cloud-cloud interaction Two filament eruptions H MC1: MC ~ -15°, MC ~ 125° ~ 0.08 AU MC2: MC ~ 55° & MC ~ 120° [From Dasso et al., JGR 2009] ~ 0.4 AU MC1: Typical coherent rotation of B (flux rope) but ... Compressed  no typical expansion (it is significantly pushed by MC2) no typical linear profile of V and no typical low Tp and low  MC2: huge MC, large impact parameter Typical expansion factor (=0.7±0.1) MC2 is almost not affected by MC1 (relative size) Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France

  19. Transients are ejected from the Sun toward the SW • A subset of ICMEs can be observed as ‘Magnetic Clouds’ (MCs) in the SW • Observed properties: • - Low Tp • - Smooth and larger rotation of enhanced B • - Low proton plasma p From [Zurbuchen & Richardson, Space Science Rev, 2006] • Fast MCs driven a shock wave (and a turbulent sheath of large n) • Cold structures (low Tp) • e-s flows along B (>100eVs): proxy of magnetic connectivity • Smooth and large coherent rotation of B (helical structures), increased respect to the SW • Low plasma beta (p) Fmag Snow thrower effect Parker spiral B

  20. Evolution of MCs in the heliosphere (more cases) from Leitner et al. [JGR’07], in agreement with previous studies [Bothmer & Schwenn, AnnGeophys 1998] Inner heliosphere Tp~r- 1.2.±0.7 Inner heliosphere np~r- 2.4±0.5 np~r- 2.6±0.1 Tp~r- 1.6±0.2 Inner heliosphere D~r1.1.±0.4 Inner heliosphere B0~r- 1.6±0.4 B0~r-1.3±0.1 D~r0.6±0.1 4th El Leoncito Solar Physics School, El Leoncito San Juan & La Punta San Luis, Argentina, Nov 24-29, 2008

  21. Spacecraft Observations (MFI/Wind): MC observed on Oct 18-19, 1995 • Coherent Rotation of B • Velocity profile flat (old cloud without significant expansion) • Shock wave in front (A) • Magnetic hole (B): a signature of reconnected field? • Strong Alfvén waves activity after the MC From Lepping et al. [JGR, 1997]

  22. Modelling the magnetic flux rope From in situ observed B possible to ‘orient’ the flux rope & compare with models  IAU Symposium 257 Universal Heliophysical Processes, Ioannina, Greece, Sep 15-19, 2008

  23. NOT OVERTAKEN [see more in Gulisano et al., poster SW12] OVERTAKEN Expanding MC in a ‘clean’ SW Observed by Helios 1 on Jan 7, 1975 Expanding MC while fast SW is overtaken it Observed by Helios 1 on Jun 23, 1980

  24. Magnetic Reconnection: More ingredients than MHD are needed to evolution of B enlarged in IP Hall Effect: • From MHD eqs: , then B is frozen-in to the electron fluid • Electrons travel faster in helical motion, thus B is accelerated respect to MHD • Current sheet is tinnier and reconnection is more efficient From numerical simulations of 2.5D incompressible HMHD [Morales et al., JGR’05]

  25. 2nd studied case: Nov 2004 From Harra et al. [Sol Phys 2007] • We study this MC, which is in very strong expansion • Decreasing V • Decreasing B • There are different end boundaries, according with different proxies (criteria)

  26. with axial expansion No axial expansion [Dasso et al, SolPhys 2007, in press] Now, we consider expansion effects on flux cancellation observed z dx modelled x Cloud axis: =-10° =275°

  27. Two interacting ICMEs [From Dasso et al., JGR 2009] Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France

  28. Two filament eruptions H ICME MC2 MC2 MC1 MC1 Texp axial B spacecraft path across MCs axial B MC overtaken by another MC [From Dasso et al., JGR 2009] Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France

  29. [From Dasso et al., JGR 2009] Solar Wind 12, June 21-June 26, 2009, Saint Malo, France

  30. Grad-Shafranov (Moestl) • Two clouds, • The first one: the satellite is crossing • near the axis of the MC • For the second it crosses far away, • the impact parameters are large, • The MVariance method is not adapted

  31. Ospan observations for the flare at 13:30 UT (12:48-14:00UT) Hebe • First event • C1.5 Xray flare (OSPAN) • TRACE 195 • Second event • M8.0 X ray flare (BBSO)

  32. The events at the Sun • EIT 195 Å image on 13 May at 11:42 UT. • Magnetic linear force free model of AR 10759 before the M 8.0 flare • = -1.6 10-2 Mm-1 Negative magnetic helicity in the AR field and surroundings TRACE 195 Å image on 14 May at 12:45 UT. Two post-flare arcades are visible. • Negative helicity on the Sun and in the MCs

  33. Open and closed fields in magnetic clouds Suprathermal (320 eV) electron pitch angle distributions for 8 Nov 04 • Counterstreaming suprathermal electrons indicate field lines connected to the Sun at both ends (closed) • On average, clouds are nearly half open open closed Shodhan et al. [2000] magnetic cloud

  34. Gosling, Birn, and Hesse [1995] Crooker, Gosling, and Kahler [2002] Opening ICMEs by Interchange Reconnection • At CME liftoff • a. Partial disconnection (closed-closed) creates flux rope coil • b. Interchange reconnection (closed-open) opens coil • As ICME moves out into heliosphere • Interchange reconnection at Sun may continue to open field lines

More Related