1 / 13

CME reconstruction: View from SECCHI and numerical simulations

CME reconstruction: View from SECCHI and numerical simulations. Noé Lugaz Institute for Astronomy. SCOSTEP-12 , July 25, 2010. Using MHD Simulations. 3-D MHD Simulation Synthetic Images produced (LOS, EUV, in-situ, etc…)

trent
Télécharger la présentation

CME reconstruction: View from SECCHI and numerical simulations

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. CME reconstruction:View from SECCHI and numerical simulations Noé Lugaz Institute for Astronomy SCOSTEP-12, July 25, 2010

  2. Using MHD Simulations 3-D MHD Simulation Synthetic Images produced (LOS, EUV, in-situ, etc…) Analysis technique is applied (mass, energetics, direction, kinematics) Comparison with the simulated “truth” Play with the input (parametric study) Error of the method is quantified

  3. Using MHD Simulations • Best way to quantify the errors intrinsic to the methods. • MHD simulations can be used as constrained tests, by varying the input. CME mass calculated from the 3-D MHD simulation. CME mass calculated from the white-light LOS images. Lugaz et al., ApJ, 627, 2005 • Mass can be derived from single coronagraph images (following Vourlidas et al., 2002) • Mass is about 50% underestimated. • Indirect confirmation by STEREO.

  4. Comparing 3-D structure of CMEs with LOS images • Left: LOS images. • Right: 3-D simulation. • Blue: density decrease over background. • Red: density increase. • Close to the Sun, the core and cavity are still clearly visible. • Farther away, line-of-sight effects make it harder to distinguish low and high-density regions, and to estimate the extent of the CME.

  5. Example for Jan. 24-25, 2007 CMEs • 2 CMEs 16 hours apart. • 2nd CME is about twice faster than 1st CME. • Data gap in SECCHI coverage at the time of the expected interaction. • After data gap: 3 bright fronts. What’s their origin? Running difference of density on the Thomson sphere, running difference HI-2 images Lugaz et al., ApJL., 2008

  6. J-maps (time-elongation plots) Time (from 01/25)-elongation plots for PA 69 (apparent central PA of SECCHI). Procedure developed by Sheeley et al. for LASCO data. Lugaz et al., Sol. Phys, 2009

  7. 2- Different PA, different view Time (from 01/25)-elongation plots for PA 90 (approx. nose of CMEs).

  8. Advantages and limitations • Advantages: • Thomson scattered signal calculated from the 3-D distribution of density. • Can separate observational effects from physical characteristics. • No assumption of shape/symmetry. • “Realistic” solar wind. • Limited assumptions: • MHD. • Out-of-equilibrium flux ropes. But in the heliosphere, the exact CME initiation mechanism is of limited importance. • Initial CME magnetic energy is set to reproduceLASCO speed. • Cannot be used for every (Earth-directed) CME. • Other simulations (e.g., ENLIL) can be used for almost every Earth-directed CME but no magnetic field in CME (and initiation at 20 RSun).

  9. Stereoscopic view in HIs • Only a few CMEs have been observed simultaneously in the 2 HIs. • What can we learn about CMEs ?

  10. Analytical model to derive CME radius • Assumptions: • CME front is locally circular. Its radius is unknown and varies with time. • Direction of the CME is constant AND KNOWN. Here, we use the value derived by Thernisien et al. in COR (-21o). • The two STEREO spacecraft observe the front at the elongation angle corresponding to the tangent to this front • Here, ST-A determines the CME nose position, ST-B the CME radius. Asymmetry of measurements can be explained by expansion/ shrinking of the CME due internal pressure and interaction of the CME with solar wind. 2 viewpoints can be used to derive the CME radius. Lugaz et al., ApJ, 2010

  11. Formula and results CME direction elongation separation STA-Earth radius ST-A distance distance We used measurements made by NRL and RAL based on J-maps. Fast changes when the CME is observed in COR2-B and HI1-A. Rate after 20 hours (from 0.25 to 0.65 AU): -4o/day. Forecast at 1 AU: hit at ST-B at 03:00UT on 04/30. No hit at ST-A and ACE. Reality: ICME from 15:30 on 04/29 to 07:00 on 04/30

  12. Other models Thernisien et al., 2009, Sol. Phys Wood & Howard, 2009, ApJ • Angular extent consistent with Thernisien et al., Sol Phys, 2009 (~ 21o) and with Wood & Howard (~ 20o for the outer edge) • Decreasing cross-section appears to be caused by the NE direction of the CME (w/r to ST-B) resulting in the leg of the CME. Almost a “mapping”

  13. Conclusions • MHD simulations can be used to test different analysis methods. • We have the ability to do synthetic line-of-sight images and J-maps from 3-D MHD code and compare with the 3-D structure. • Running difference and J-mapping result in a loss of information. We must be careful. • How to use stereoscopic heliospheric observations? • Simple geometrical model to derive CME expansion, • Visual fitting/Forward modeling. • More work to develop analysis methods and/or more numerical simulations is required to better understand HI measurements. These studies have been made possible by the following grants: NSF-CAREER ATM0639335, NSF-NSWP ATM0819653 and NASA-LWS NNX08AQ16G.

More Related