1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: 

3: %From Seth Redfield 2/14/07

4: %Revised by Jeffrey Linsky 28 Feb 2007

5: \shorttitle{LISM Dynamics}

6: \shortauthors{Redfield \& Linsky}

7: 

8: \begin{document}

9: 

10: \newcommand{\php}[0]{\phantom{--}}

11: \newcommand{\kms}[0]{km~s$^{-1}$}

12: 

13: \title{THE STRUCTURE OF THE LOCAL INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM IV: DYNAMICS,

14: MORPHOLOGY, PHYSICAL PROPERTIES, AND IMPLICATIONS OF CLOUD-CLOUD

15: INTERACTIONS\footnote{Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA

16: Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the Data Archive at the Space

17: Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of

18: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS

19: 5-26555.  These observations are associated with programs \#9525 and

20: \#10236.}}

21: 

22: \author{Seth Redfield\altaffilmark{2,3} and Jeffrey

23: L. Linsky\altaffilmark{4}}

24: 

25: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy and McDonald Observatory,

26: University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712-0259; {\tt

27: sredfield@astro.as.utexas.edu}}

28: \altaffiltext{3}{Hubble Fellow.}

29: \altaffiltext{4}{JILA, University of Colorado and NIST, 

30: Boulder, CO 80309-0440; {\tt jlinsky@jila.colorado.edu}}

31: 

32: 

33: \begin{abstract}

34: 

35: We present an empirical dynamical model of the local interstellar

36: medium based on 270 radial-velocity measurements for 157 sight lines

37: toward nearby stars.  Physical-parameter measurements (i.e.,

38: temperature, turbulent velocity, depletions) are available for 90

39: components, or one-third of the sample, enabling initial

40: characterizations of the physical properties of LISM clouds.  The

41: model includes 15 warm clouds located within 15~pc of the Sun, each

42: with a different velocity vector.  We derive projected morphologies of

43: all clouds and estimate the volume filling factor of warm partially

44: ionized material in the LISM to be between $\sim$5.5\% and 19\%.

45: Relative velocities of potentially interacting clouds are often

46: supersonic, consistent with heating, turbulent, and metal-depletion

47: properties. Cloud-cloud collisions may be responsible for the

48: filamentary morphologies found in $\sim$1/3 of LISM clouds, the

49: distribution of clouds along the boundaries of the two nearest clouds

50: (LIC and G), the detailed shape and heating of the Mic Cloud, the

51: location of nearby radio scintillation screens, and the location of a

52: LISM cold cloud. Contrary to previous claims, the Sun appears to be

53: located in the transition zone between the LIC and G Clouds.

54: 

55: \end{abstract}

56: 

57: \keywords{ISM: atoms --- ISM: clouds --- ISM: structure --- line: 

58: profiles --- ultraviolet: ISM --- ultraviolet: stars}

59: 

60: \section{INTRODUCTION}

61: 

62: In their now classical theoretical models for the interstellar medium

63: (ISM), \citet*{field69}, \citet{mckee77}, and

64: \citet{wolfire95a,wolfire95b} assumed the ISM to be in thermal and

65: steady-state equilibrium. In these models, three stable regimes

66: co-exist in pressure equilibrium: the cold neutral medium (CNM) with

67: temperature $T\geq 50$~K, the warm neutral (WNM) or ionized medium

68: (WIM) with $T \sim 8000$~K, and the hot ionized medium (HIM) with

69: $T\sim 1,000,000$~K.  These models include heating by ultraviolet (UV)

70: photons on grains and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) molecules

71: and cooling by various forbidden lines and the hydrogen Lyman-$\alpha$

72: line. These models do not include gas flows or predict the expected

73: sizes of the various components. Given the low density of interstellar

74: gas and the presence of supernovae and strong stellar winds, one

75: expects that the gas will be far out of thermal and pressure

76: equilibrium and be highly dynamic.  Various reviews

77: \citep[e.g.,][]{cox05,mccray79} discuss these issues and highlight the

78: complexity of the ISM.

79: 

80: The Local Bubble (LB) is a region of low-density presumably hot gas

81: extending in all directions to hydrogen column densities $\log

82: N($\ion{H}{1}$) = 19.3$ \citep{lallement03}. Its shape is determined

83: by the onset of significant column density of \ion{Na}{1}, indicative

84: of a cold gas shell surrounding the LB.  Although the LB is irregular

85: in shape, it extends to roughly 100~pc from the Sun. For our purposes,

86: we consider the local interstellar medium (LISM) to consist of the

87: hot, warm, and cold gas located inside the LB.  The LISM gas has been

88: shaped by the supernovae explosions and winds of massive stars in the

89: Scorpio-Centaurus Association and ionized and heated by radiation from

90: hot stars and the Galactic UV background \citep[e.g.,][]{berghofer02},

91: and so should provide a useful test of interstellar gas properties in

92: our Galaxy and the assumptions that underlie theoretical models of the

93: ISM.  We can now study the LISM in detail because the ground-level

94: transitions of many neutral and ionized atoms present in the UV could

95: be observed with the high-resolution spectrographs on the {\it Hubble

96: Space Telescope} ({\it HST}).  With resolutions as high as $R \equiv

97: \lambda/\Delta\lambda = 100,000$ ($\Delta v = 3.0$ km s$^{-1}$), both

98: the Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS) and the Space

99: Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) have obtained stellar spectra

100: containing numerous interstellar absorption lines. As described below,

101: these ultraviolet spectra, together with ground-based spectra in the

102: \ion{Ca}{2} H and K resonance lines, provide critical data for

103: sampling the kinematic and physical properties of warm interstellar

104: gas along 157 lines of sight.

105: 

106: The dynamical structure of the LISM has a direct influence on the

107: structure of the heliosphere around our solar system and astrospheres

108: surrounding other nearby stars.  The extent of the heliosphere

109: (astrosphere) is determined by the balance of momentum ($\rho v^2$)

110: between the outward moving solar (stellar) wind and the surrounding

111: interstellar medium.  Long-term variations in the solar wind strength

112: are not well known, but observations of astrospheres around young

113: solar analogs provide clues as to what kind of wind the Sun had in its

114: distant past.  The solar wind 3.5 billions years ago may have been

115: $\sim$35-fold stronger than it is today \citep{wood05let}.  In

116: contrast, density variations spanning 6 orders of magnitude are

117: commonly observed throughout the general ISM.  However, variations in

118: the dynamical properties of the surrounding ISM can also cause

119: significant variations in the structure of the heliosphere even

120: between clouds with little-to-no density variation.  Reviews of

121: heliospheric modeling include \citet{zank99} and \citet{baranov90},

122: and the detection of astrospheres around nearby stars is reviewed by

123: \citet{wood04}.  \citet{muller06} explore the response of heliospheric

124: models to various interstellar environments that exist in the LISM.

125: Significant heliospheric (or astrospheric) compression can impact

126: planetary albedos, atmospheric chemistry, and biological mutation

127: rates.  Reviews of the implications of heliospheric variability are

128: discussed by \citet{redfield06} and \citet{frisch06book}.

129: 

130: \citet{crutcher82} first noted that interstellar gas in the LISM flows

131: in roughly the same direction away from the center of the

132: Scorpio-Centaurus Association.  \citet{lallement92} then showed that

133: the flow of interstellar gas in the direction away from the Galactic

134: Center is consistent with a vector that differs somewhat from that of

135: the gas in the Galactic Center direction. They coined the term AG

136: Cloud for the former and G Cloud for the latter. The AG Cloud is now

137: called the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC), since the Sun has been

138: presumed to be located just inside the LIC on the basis that the

139: velocity of neutral helium flowing into the heliosphere is consistent

140: with the LIC flow vector \citep{witte93}.  \citet{lallement95} argued

141: that the LISM has a complex velocity structure with at least seven

142: clouds located within 12 pc. Using a larger data set,

143: \citet*{frisch02} were able to identify 7 clouds in the LISM on the

144: basis of their kinematics. Using \ion{Na}{1} spectra of stars in the

145: Galactic anti-center hemisphere, \citet{genova03} identified 8 clouds

146: of presumably cold gas lying beyond 50~pc of the Sun with velocity

147: vectors very different from those identified in this paper. These

148: clouds may lie at the edge of the Local Bubble or beyond.

149: 

150: The present work expands on the earlier studies in two ways. First, we

151: analyze a much larger data set consisting of 270 individual velocity

152: components along 157 lines of sight through the LISM. Each velocity

153: component provides kinematical information (i.e., radial velocity) of

154: a parcel of gas that we can analyze together with other velocity

155: components to identify velocity vectors and morphologies of different

156: gas clouds. Second, high-resolution GHRS and STIS spectra for 55 of

157: these velocity components allow us to measure the widths of absorption

158: lines from atoms and ions of different atomic weight to determine the

159: temperature and turbulent velocity \citep{redfield04tt}, and for 65 of

160: the velocity components \ion{D}{1} \citep[an excellent proxy for

161: \ion{H}{1} in the LISM;][]{linsky06} is observed together with other

162: ions which can be used to calculate metal depletions

163: \citep[cf.,][]{redfield04sw}.  These measurements allow us to

164: determine some of the physical properties of the clouds in addition to

165: their kinematical and morphological properties.

166: 

167: In this paper, we use the term ``cloud'' to refer to a contiguous

168: parcel of interstellar gas inside the LISM with homogeneous

169: kinematical and physical properties. We determine the morphology of 15

170: such clouds (\S~\ref{sec:coll} and \S~\ref{sec:morph}) by assuming that

171: the interstellar gas flow inside each cloud is coherent and that the

172: clouds have sharp edges. An upper limit to the distance of each cloud

173: from the Sun is the distance to the nearest star whose spectrum shows

174: a velocity component consistent with the cloud's velocity vector. We

175: identify locations on the sky of possible cloud-cloud interactions and

176: check whether these locations are consistent with other phenomena

177: (\S~\ref{sec:collide}).  In subsequent papers we will describe how

178: these cloud-cloud interactions could explain radio scintillation

179: screens and the locations of cold clouds.  The results may be used to

180: test assumptions of sharp cloud boundaries, departures from coherent

181: flow, and search for evidence of shear, cloud rotation and expansion,

182: and alignment with magnetic fields \citep{cox03}.

183: 

184: \section{DATA ANALYSIS}

185: 

186: \subsection{\it Construction of LISM Observational Database}

187: 

188: The ability to assign large-scale dynamical flows to observed

189: projected radial velocities requires an extensive and densely sampled

190: observational database.  We have compiled the most comprehensive

191: high-spectral-resolution observational database from absorption line

192: transitions in the UV observed by {\it HST} and from the \ion{Ca}{2}

193: optical transition observed from the ground.  Transitions in the UV

194: are the most sensitive to the warm partially ionized clouds that

195: populate the LISM, while \ion{Ca}{2} is the transition most sensitive

196: to warm gas in the visible \citep{redfield06}.  Only six sight lines

197: have both UV and \ion{Ca}{2} interstellar absorption detections:

198: $\alpha$ Aql, $\alpha$ PsA, $\delta$ Cas, $\eta$ UMa, $\alpha$ Gru, and

199: $\epsilon$ Gru \citep[see references in][]{redfield02}.  Not all UV

200: velocity components are detected in \ion{Ca}{2}, but those that are

201: agree in observed velocity very well.  The absorption observed toward

202: $\alpha$ Gru provides the only example where the ultra-high-resolution

203: \ion{Ca}{2} observations resolve multiple components from absorption

204: identified as a single UV component \citep{crawford95,redfield02}.

205: About 26\% of the sight lines are observed in several ions.  Multiple

206: ion observations of the LISM along the same line of sight provide

207: independent-projected velocity measurements and provide additional

208: diagnostics of the physical properties of the material (e.g.,

209: depletion, temperature, ionization, etc).  Even though only 1--3

210: velocity components are identified per sight line, moderately high

211: spectral resolution is required to adequately separate and resolve

212: individual absorbers with similar-projected velocities.

213: 

214: Our database, which includes 270 individual velocity components along

215: 157 sight lines, is derived from: (1) the complete high-resolution UV

216: database of {\it HST} observations of LISM absorption toward stars

217: within 100\,pc \citep[see][and references

218: therein]{redfield02,redfield04sw}, which represents 55\% of the

219: velocity components in our sample, (2) the high-resolution \ion{Ca}{2}

220: absorption measurements toward stars within 100\,pc

221: (\citealt{frisch02}; and references within \citealt{redfield02}),

222: which represent 32\% of the components in our sample, and (3) the

223: moderate-resolution UV database of {\it HST} observations of LISM

224: absorption toward stars within 100\,pc (\citealt*{wood96};

225: \citealt{wood00,wood05sup}), representing the remaining 13\% of the

226: components in our sample.  Physical-parameter measurements (i.e.,

227: temperature, turbulent velocity, depletions) are available for 90

228: components, or one-third of the sample.

229: 

230: All absorption is assumed to be caused by the LISM.  Contamination of

231: the absorption database by absorption caused by edge-on circumstellar

232: disks, although possible, is highly unlikely.  Not only are nearby

233: stars with circumstellar material rare, the requirement of an edge-on

234: orientation further limits the likelihood of observing such systems.

235: Only a handful of such systems, which show circumstellar absorption,

236: are known within 100\,pc.  The most prominent example is $\beta$ Pic,

237: whose spectrum shows stable absorption at the stellar rest frame and

238: variable absorption components, both due to circumstellar gas

239: \citep{hobbs85,brandeker04}, in addition to a LISM component, resolved

240: from the circumstellar material only in the heaviest (i.e., narrowest)

241: ions, such as \ion{Fe}{2} \citep{lallement95,redfield02}.  Only two

242: other stars in the LISM database have known edge-on circumstellar

243: disks: (1) $\beta$ Car \citep{lagrangehenri90} in which only the

244: \ion{Na}{1} absorption feature was observed to vary, whereas the

245: \ion{Ca}{2} absorption is relatively steady, and match the UV

246: observations \citep*{redfield07lismdd,redfield02}, and (2) AU Mic

247: \citep*{kalas04} which shows no circumstellar absorption in H$_2$

248: \citep{roberge05,france07} or other UV lines, including Lyman-$\alpha$

249: \citep{wood05sup} and the single UV observation does not allow for any

250: constraint on the constancy of the observed absorption

251: \citep{redfield02}.  Therefore, we have retained these absorption

252: features in the LISM database, but their removal does not

253: significantly change the velocity vectors determined for the clouds

254: for which they are members.

255: 

256: We focus on using \ion{Ca}{2} because it primarily traces warm LISM

257: gas, whereas \ion{Na}{1} primarily traces cold gas not common in the

258: LISM.  However, \ion{Na}{1} is occasionally detected in absorption

259: toward nearby stars (e.g., \citealt*{blades80}; \citealt{vallerga93};

260: \citealt*{welty94}; \citealt{welsh94}).  Approximately a third (49/157

261: = 31\%) of the sight lines in our sample also have \ion{Na}{1}

262: observations, of which LISM absorption is detected along only 16 lines

263: of sight.  About one-half of the \ion{Na}{1} detections are toward

264: stars within 50 pc, so although relatively uncommon within 100 pc,

265: \ion{Na}{1} absorption is not significantly dominated by the cold gas

266: located near the edge of the Local Bubble \citep{lallement03}.

267: Therefore, a \ion{Ca}{2} absorption component that is associated with

268: a \ion{Na}{1} component at the same velocity is not necessarily

269: indicative of distant gas.  Practically all LISM \ion{Na}{1}

270: absorption components have companion absorption components in

271: \ion{Ca}{2} at the same velocity, which indicates that the cold gas

272: detected by the \ion{Na}{1} absorption is physically associated with

273: the warm gas detected by the \ion{Ca}{2} absorption, and not separate

274: clouds at coincident velocities.  It appears that much of the cold gas

275: in the LISM is associated directly with warmer gas and these

276: structures share a common velocity vector.

277: 

278: 

279: Our combined database samples the sky unevenly because the sight lines

280: were often selected to observe UV bright stars or for purposes other

281: than measuring LISM absorption.  Although this is the densest-sampled

282: UV/optical database of LISM absorption to date, there remain

283: significant regions of poor sampling in both space and distance.  The

284: distribution of sight lines is shown for all of our dynamical cloud

285: structures in Figures~\ref{fig:lic}--\ref{fig:cet}.  The various

286: symbols used to signify the sight lines, as well as a discussion of

287: the morphology of the derived clouds, is provided in

288: Section~\ref{sec:morph}.  The median angular distance from one sight

289: line to its nearest neighbor is 6.6 degrees, ranging from observations

290: of binary stars with angular separations of $\sim$10 arcsecs (e.g.,

291: $\alpha$ Cen A and B, $\alpha$ CMa A and B), to the poorly sampled

292: region near $l=137^{\circ}$ and $b=49^{\circ}$ where the maximum

293: nearest neighbor separation is 21.5 degrees.  Areas of poor sampling

294: limit our ability to detect dynamical cloud structures, as many sight

295: lines through the same collection of gas are required to determine an

296: accurate velocity vector.  Poor sampling also limits our ability to

297: estimate distances to structures in these regions.

298: 

299: \subsection{\it Criteria for Identifying an Interstellar Cloud}

300: 

301: We began our search for identifiable structures in the LISM with the

302: properties of the LIC as our prototype. As shown by

303: \citet{lallement92} and by \citet{redfield00}, the LIC moves as if it

304: were a rigid structure, that is the observed radial velocities toward

305: nearby stars over a wide range of Galactic coordinates are consistent

306: with a single velocity vector.  The scatter of the measured radial

307: velocities about the mean vector is generally less than 1~\kms, which

308: is similar to the absolute velocity precision of STIS echelle

309: data. \citet{redfield00} constructed a three-dimensional model for the

310: LIC based on absorption-line data for 32 lines of sight.  The edge of

311: the cloud was determined by the measured \ion{H}{1} column density

312: along each line of sight and the assumption that the \ion{H}{1} number

313: density is the same throughout the LIC.  This simple assumption cannot

314: be readily tested and could be far from the truth.  Thus the true

315: shape of the LIC is not well determined and the question of its edge,

316: whether it be sharp or gradual, is unknown. Although

317: \citet{redfield00} concluded that the LIC is roughly spherical in

318: shape, the shape of interstellar clouds often appears to be

319: filamentary based on an abundance of observations of nearby

320: \citep{frisch83} and distant \citep[e.g.,][]{graham95} filamentary

321: structure in the ISM, presumably organized by magnetic fields

322: \citep*{jackson03}. We have therefore not assumed any {\it a priori}

323: shape for the clouds in the LISM. In practice, we have followed a few

324: simple rules in identifying interstellar clouds.

325: Figures~\ref{fig:lic}--\ref{fig:cet} show the spatial distribution and

326: projected boundaries of the resulting dynamical clouds, and

327: Tables~\ref{tab:licmem}--\ref{tab:cetmem} list sight line membership

328: of the clouds.

329: 

330: \begin{enumerate}

331: \item We determine the three-dimensional heliocentric velocity vector

332: (three free parameters: the velocity magnitude [$V_0$] and the

333: direction in Galactic coordinates [$l_0$, $b_0$]) that best fits the

334: radial velocity database, where $V_r = V_0 (\cos b \cos b_0 \cos

335: (l_0-l) + \sin b_0 \sin b)$.  Here $V_0$ is $>$0 for downwind

336: directions and $<$0 for upwind directions.  The first application of

337: this procedure to the entire database yields a velocity vector

338: consistent with absorption due to the LIC.  Since LIC absorption is

339: seen over much of the sky, the LIC should have the greatest number of

340: observed sight lines and dominate the dynamical fit of the entire

341: database.  We next delete the velocity component that most

342: significantly disagrees with the predicted projected velocity for LIC

343: absorption and then recompute the velocity vector that best fits the

344: remaining points.  This procedure is continued until a satisfactory

345: fit to the data is derived. Our criterion for ending the iteration

346: process is that the removal of next most discrepant data point does

347: not significantly reduce the goodness-of-fit measure, $\chi_{\nu}^2$,

348: as determined using the F-test, where $\chi_{\nu}^2 \equiv

349: \chi^2/\nu$, and $\nu$ are the number of degrees of freedom, and

350: $\chi^2 \equiv \sum\left[(V_r({\rm obs}) - V_r({\rm

351: pred}))/{\sigma_{V_r({\rm obs})}}\right]^2$ \citep{bevington92}.

352: 

353: \item The next step is to apply the requirement of contiguity: we

354: assume that the LIC does not have any detached pieces that have

355: acceptable radial velocities but cannot be sensibly connected to the

356: rest of the LIC because there are lines of sight between the two

357: regions that do not show radial velocities consistent with the LIC

358: velocity vector.  Because of the similarity of the different velocity

359: vectors of LISM gas, coincident projected velocities of two or more

360: dynamical structures is common. (Those sight lines that have

361: components consistent with the vector but not spatially contiguous are

362: displayed as medium-sized green symbols in

363: Figures~\ref{fig:lic}--\ref{fig:cet}).  Although limiting the

364: definition of LISM clouds to spatially coherent structures may

365: prohibit the identification of complex morphologies, it has the

366: advantage of preventing the merging of distinct dynamical structures

367: with similar velocity vectors.  We draw a first approximation of the

368: LIC shape (see Figure~\ref{fig:lic}) consistent with all data points

369: lying within 1$\sigma$ of the predicted value if derived from

370: high-spectral-resolution data and within 3$\sigma$ if drawn from the

371: moderate-resolution data, with a contiguous morphology.  We require at

372: least 4 velocity components to constitute a distinct dynamical

373: structure.

374: 

375: \item At this stage we reintroduce previously deleted velocity

376: components that are consistent in velocity and continuity with the new

377: vector. Particularly for the smallest clouds, some velocity components

378: were prematurely removed from the fit at the earliest stages.  In

379: addition, it is at this point that other sight line properties, if

380: available, are compared in order to avoid assigning clearly different

381: collections of gas with a coincidental velocity vector.  When several

382: cloud vectors predict a similar projected velocity for a particular

383: sight line, we assign the velocity component to the cloud with the

384: nearest neighboring line of sight that is uniquely a cloud member.

385: 

386: \item At this point, we have a nominal assignment of sight lines to a

387: particular dynamical cloud.  An iterative reevaluation of sight line

388: membership of previously determined dynamical clouds is performed and

389: occasionally a reassignment of cloud membership is made, although

390: this was relatively rare.  The process is then repeated for the

391: remaining unassigned velocity components.  This iterative velocity

392: vector technique is most successful at identifying clouds comprised of

393: a large number of components (e.g., LIC and G clouds), that subtend

394: large angles on the sky (e.g., NGP and Mic clouds), or are

395: significantly different dynamically than the average LISM flow (e.g.,

396: Blue and Aql clouds).  However, it has difficulty identifying compact

397: dynamical clouds defined by only a handful of sight lines.  In order

398: to search for these kinds of clouds, we began the process with a

399: preselected subset of sight lines which are either spatially grouped

400: in a region without an identified dynamical cloud, or have a common

401: velocity difference from the general LISM flow, a technique used by

402: \citet{frisch02}.  Those that produced a satisfactory velocity vector

403: and survived the constraint of continuity resulted in the

404: identification of some of our smallest clouds (e.g., Dor and Oph

405: clouds).

406: 

407: 

408: \end{enumerate} 

409: 

410: \subsection{\it Collection of Warm Nearby Interstellar Clouds\label{sec:coll}}

411: 

412: We were able to fit rigid velocity vectors for 15 clouds in the

413: LISM\footnote{Projected and transverse velocities can be calculated

414: for any sight line at

415: http://cobalt.as.utexas.edu/$\sim$sredfield/LISMdynamics.html.}.

416: Absorption component membership and properties are given for each

417: cloud in Tables~\ref{tab:licmem}--\ref{tab:cetmem}, and the velocity

418: vectors and goodness-of-fit metrics, $\chi^2_{\nu}$, are given in

419: Table~\ref{tab:vecs}.  The names of clouds are either historical

420: (e.g., LIC: \citealt{mcclintock78}; G: \citealt{lallement92}; Blue:

421: \citealt{gry95}; Hyades: \citealt{redfield01}; and North Galactic Pole

422: (NGP): \citealt{linsky00}), or based on constellations that dominate

423: the area of the sky coincident with the cloud location.  The sight

424: line members are listed in order of distance to the target star, along

425: with the observed projected velocity of LISM absorption, the deviation

426: ($\sigma$) from the predicted projected velocity of LISM absorption,

427: any other LISM properties along the line of sight (e.g.,

428: $N($\ion{H}{1}$)$, $T$, $\xi$, $D({\rm Fe})$, and $D({\rm Mg})$), and

429: a list of other LISM clouds that could possibly explain the observed

430: absorption component.  The deviation between the observed and

431: predicted projected velocity is given as, $\sigma = (|v_0 -

432: v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where $v_0$ is the predicted projected

433: velocity of absorption, $v_{\star}$ is the observed velocity, and

434: $\sigma_v$ is the error in the observed velocity, where we have

435: imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1~km~s$^{-1}$ for all high resolution

436: data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3~km~s$^{-1}$ for all medium

437: resolution data.  The list of other clouds that could possibly explain

438: the observed absorption component were required to meet slightly

439: relaxed constraints from those imposed for cloud membership, such that

440: those clouds listed in the last column of

441: Tables~\ref{tab:licmem}--\ref{tab:cetmem} are within 10$^{\circ}$ of

442: the sight line and predict a projected velocity within 3$\sigma$ of

443: the observed velocity.

444: 

445: Three clouds, NGP, Oph, and Cet, have $\chi^2_{\nu} > 3$, indicating a

446: relatively poor match between our rigid velocity vector and the

447: observed projected velocities.  We believe that the high

448: $\chi^2_{\nu}$ values for these clouds indicate departures from the

449: assumption of rigidity rather than the existence of several cloudlets

450: with very similar velocity vectors.  For example, the NGP and Oph

451: clouds are relatively compact collections of many sight lines, 15 and

452: 6, respectively, which supports a genuine connection between the

453: absorbing material despite the poor fit to a rigid velocity vector.

454: Likewise, although the Cet cloud is filamentary and comprised of only

455: 5 sight lines, its high velocity makes it unlikely that a set of

456: random velocities, for a contiguous group of sight lines, would all be

457: consistent with such an extreme velocity vector.

458: 

459: The distributions of velocity amplitude ($V_0$) and direction in

460: Galactic coordinates ($l_0$, $b_0$) for the 15 clouds are given in

461: Figure~\ref{fig:solhist} in both the solar rest frame (heliocentric)

462: and relative to the local standard of rest (LSR).  The vector

463: solutions for all clouds have similar directions, suggesting that

464: there is a common history or dynamical driver for all the warm LISM

465: clouds, but there is a wide range of velocity amplitudes suggesting

466: the presence of shocks in the LISM \citep[cf.][]{mccray79}.  In

467: particular, five clouds have velocity components that differ

468: significantly from the mean value: the Blue and Hyades clouds have

469: $V_0 < 15$ km~s$^{-1}$, and the Aql, Dor, and Cet clouds have $V_0 >

470: 50$ km~s$^{-1}$.

471: 

472: Figure~\ref{fig:vecs} shows the projections of the three-dimensional

473: velocity vector solutions along different Galactic axes.  The location

474: of the center of each vector is placed in the direction of the center

475: of the cloud at the distance of the closest star with the cloud's

476: absorption velocity.  This figure likewise demonstrates that the 15

477: velocity vectors are all variations on the same theme, in that they

478: all are aligned in approximately the same direction; however,

479: significant differences do exist between individual velocity vectors.

480: 

481: About 18.8\% of the velocity components in our database cannot be

482: assigned to any of our 15 derived velocity vectors.  All unassigned

483: components are listed in Table~\ref{tab:unass}.  Many of these

484: velocity components may represent more distant LISM clouds that

485: subtend smaller fractions of the sky and are probed by too few sight

486: lines to derive a unique velocity vector.  Approximately 90\% of the

487: 51 unassigned absorbers are toward stars beyond 15 pc.  Only five stars

488: within 15 pc contain unassigned absorption components, and all 

489: have an unidentified absorption component in addition to absorption

490: from identified nearby clouds.  

491: 

492: The first attempt to fit a rigid velocity vector to absorption lines

493: from nearby stars was made by \citet{crutcher82}.  Seven stars that

494: were presumed to be within 100 pc, and which were dominated by a

495: single velocity component in moderate resolution ($R \sim $80,000)

496: \ion{Ti}{2} observations by \citet{stokes78}, were used to solve for a

497: single LISM velocity vector, $V_0 = 28$ km~s$^{-1}$, $l_0 =

498: 205^{\circ}$, and $b_0 = -10^{\circ}$.  Two of the seven stars turn

499: out to have {\it Hipparcos} distances $>$100 pc, while 4 of the

500: remaining 5 have high-resolution UV or \ion{Ca}{2} observations and

501: are included in our database.  However, all of these stars show clear

502: evidence for multiple components in high-resolution spectra.  Although

503: \citet{crutcher82} was able to derive the general LISM flow direction,

504: this work demonstrates that analysis of the dynamical structure of the

505: LISM requires: (1) high-spectral-resolution observations of ions

506: sensitive to LISM material, (2) accurate distances to the background

507: stars, and (3) a much larger number of sight lines to disentangle the

508: complicated spatial and kinematic structure of local material.

509: 

510: In a series of papers, including \citet{lallement92} and

511: \citet{lallement95}, Lallement et al.\ used high-resolution ($R \sim

512: $110,000) \ion{Ca}{2} observations and UV observations of \ion{Mg}{2}

513: and \ion{Fe}{2} of $\sim$16 stars to derive two rigid velocity vectors

514: that encompassed significant areas of the sky.  The velocity vectors

515: were associated with the LIC, where they derive a solution, $V_0 =

516: 25.7$ km~s$^{-1}$, $l_0 = 186.1^{\circ}$, and $b_0 = -16.4^{\circ}$,

517: and the G Cloud, with a solution of $V_0 = 29.4$ km~s$^{-1}$, $l_0 =

518: 184.5^{\circ}$, and $b_0 = -20.5^{\circ}$.  The LIC and G Cloud

519: velocity vectors that we derive from 5 times the number of lines of

520: sight are similar (see Table~\ref{tab:vecs}).  For the LIC, we

521: calculated a heliocentric velocity vector with a magnitude of 23.84

522: $\pm$ 0.90 \kms\ flowing toward Galactic coordinates $l=187\fdg0 \pm

523: 3\fdg4$ and $b=-13\fdg5 \pm 3\fdg3$.  Our LIC vector is within

524: $\sim$1$\sigma$ of the direction proposed by \citet{lallement92} but

525: 1.8 km~s$^{-1}$ smaller in amplitude. Our G vector is almost identical

526: to their previous determination.  This agreement, derived from a much

527: larger sample, demonstrates not only the reliability of the analysis,

528: but also the ability to derive accurate velocity vectors from a

529: relatively small number of sight lines.

530: 

531: \citet{frisch02} derived a bulk flow vector, essentially the average

532: velocity vector consistent with 96 velocity components from 60 stars

533: within 132 pc.  As we found with our larger database, the fit to all

534: of the velocity components leads to a solution that approximates the

535: LIC velocity vector, since LIC absorption dominates observations of

536: nearby stars, although G Cloud absorption also contributes

537: significantly.  \citet{frisch02} assumed the direction of that bulk

538: flow vector for all LISM clouds (except the LIC), then identified

539: compact collections of absorbers that show common velocity magnitude

540: departures from the bulk flow velocity.  Our Blue Cloud vector,

541: derived from 10 velocity components, matches well with that calculated

542: by \citet{frisch02} from only 2 velocity components.  However, the

543: other cloud vectors discussed by \citet{frisch02} are not obviously

544: comparable to the vectors that we derive.  In particular, the

545: remaining clouds only differ from the bulk flow by

546: $\leq$3$\sigma$. Therefore, several of the velocity components

547: identified in \citet{frisch02} are included as members of the LIC in

548: our calculation.  Although the directions of velocity components in

549: the LISM are similar, the assumption that they are identical can

550: hinder the identification of distinct dynamical structures.

551: 

552: {\it In situ} measurements derived from neutral helium

553: \citep[e.g.,][]{witte04}, pick-up ions \citep[e.g.,][]{gloeckler04},

554: and backscattered UV emission

555: \citep[e.g.,][]{vallerga04,lallement04back}, provide information on

556: the interstellar flow vector that our solar system is presently

557: encountering.  \citet{mobius04} summarize the results of these

558: experiments and provide the weighted mean values for the flow vector,

559: $V_0 = 26.24\pm 0.45$ km~s$^{-1}$, $l_0 = 183.4^{\circ}\pm

560: 0.4^{\circ}$, and $b_0 = -15.9^{\circ}\pm 0.4^{\circ}$.  Although

561: technically this vector is consistent within 3$\sigma$ of both the LIC

562: and G Cloud vectors, the {\it in situ} velocity is intermediate

563: between the velocities of the LIC and G clouds by 2.4$\sigma$ and

564: 2.9$\sigma$, respectively.  Previous studies

565: \citep[e.g.,][]{lallement92} have concluded that the flow in the

566: heliosphere is at the LIC velocity.  \citet{redfield00} and others

567: have argued that the solar system is located near the edge of the LIC

568: and is moving toward the G Cloud.  However, the new lower LIC velocity

569: amplitude that we now derive suggests that the {\it in situ}

570: measurements could be sampling an interaction region between the

571: faster-moving G Cloud material and the slower-moving LIC cloud

572: material, see Table~\ref{tab:vecs} and \S~\ref{sec:licg}.  This

573: conclusion is supported by the $6303 \pm 390$~K temperature of

574: interstellar gas in the heliosphere \citep{mobius04}, which, like the

575: velocity, is intermediate between the temperature of the LIC cloud gas

576: ($7500\pm 1300$~K) and the G Cloud gas ($5500\pm 400$~K), although the

577: differences have a lower significance of 0.9$\sigma$ and 1.4$\sigma$,

578: respectively.  Additional temperature measurements, and therefore a

579: refinement of the mean temperature, of both the LIC and G clouds would

580: be possible with observations of multiple ions along additional sight

581: lines.  Currently, such measurements are available along only 29 sight

582: lines, 24 of which probe the LIC or G cloud material

583: \citep{redfield04tt}.  If the heliosphere is now located in a

584: transition zone between the clouds, then we predict that long term

585: {\it in situ} measurements will gradually approach the G Cloud

586: velocity and temperature.

587: 

588: \section{MORPHOLOGY OF WARM CLOUDS IN THE LISM \label{sec:morph}} 

589: 

590: Figures~\ref{fig:lic}--\ref{fig:cet} show the morphologies of each

591: cloud encompassing the sight lines consistent with the 15 rigid

592: velocity vectors derived from the LISM database\footnote{Probable

593: cloud membership based on the projected cloud morphologies, can be

594: calculated for any sight line at

595: http://cobalt.as.utexas.edu/$\sim$sredfield/LISMdynamics.html.}.  The sight

596: lines utilized in the velocity vector calculations are indicated by

597: the large blue symbols, while sight lines with consistent projected

598: velocities, but assigned to other clouds, are shown by the medium

599: green symbols, and those sight lines with observed projected

600: velocities that are inconsistent with the velocity vector fit are

601: indicated by the small red symbols.  The projected morphology of each

602: cloud is drawn to include all sight lines used in the velocity fit,

603: while avoiding all lines of sight that are inconsistent with the

604: velocity vector. Each figure shows the cloud morphology from four

605: different directions in Galactic coordinates.

606: 

607: Although the filamentary nature of the clouds could be exaggerated in

608: some cases because of the low spatial sampling and our requirement of

609: cohesion, approximately a third of the clouds have projected

610: morphologies that are clearly filamentary.  It is possible that a

611: couple of the ``compact'' morphologies may actually be filamentary,

612: but due to a chance orientation, are projected as a compact cloud on

613: the sky.  However, it would be highly unlikely that the orientations

614: of many ``compact'' clouds would be precisely aligned along the line

615: of sight to hide the true morphology of the clouds.  Determining the

616: true morphology of these clouds, regardless of orientation, requires a

617: database with high spatial {\it and} distance sampling.  The

618: orientations of the observed filamentary clouds are not similar, which

619: argues against an association with a global magnetic field that may

620: thread through the LISM.  Instead, the filamentary regions, which

621: generally trace the boundary between the LIC and G clouds, may

622: indicate regions of cloud-cloud interactions, where the rigid velocity

623: structure is disrupted and potentially shocked by the collision of two

624: adjacent clouds.

625: 

626: 

627: \section{PHYSICAL PROPERTIES}

628: 

629: Table~\ref{tab:sumprop} summarizes basic physical properties (e.g.,

630: coordinates of the cloud center, upper limits to the cloud's distance,

631: projected surface area, weighted mean temperature, turbulent velocity,

632: and depletion of iron and magnesium) of the 15 clouds.  The surface

633: area on the sky is simply the surface area of the projected boundaries

634: shown in Figures~\ref{fig:lic}--\ref{fig:cet}.  The temperature and

635: turbulent velocities are derived from comparisons of the measured

636: Doppler widths of absorption lines of elements with different atomic

637: masses (e.g., deuterium and iron) using the relation, $b^2 = 2kT/m +

638: \xi^2$ \citep{redfield04tt,wood96}.  The depletions, $D(X) = \log

639: \left(X/H\right) - \log \left(X/H\right)_{\odot}$, are calculated

640: using the \citet*{asplund05} solar abundances, where the hydrogen

641: abundance is typically calculated from \ion{D}{1} and converted to

642: \ion{H}{1} using the remarkably constant LISM D/H ratio of $1.56 \pm

643: 0.04 \times 10^{-6}$ \citep{linsky06}.  The depletions do not take

644: into account partial ionization of hydrogen, which is likely

645: important, or neutral or doubly ionized magnesium and iron, which are

646: likely much less important since they are not expected to become a

647: dominant ionization stage of either element

648: \citep[cf.][]{slavin02,lehner03}.  The weighted mean and $1\sigma$

649: uncertainty of the mean are listed for all physical properties with

650: measurements on multiple sight lines.  No significant correlation

651: appears to exist between any of the physical properties listed and

652: cloud morphology.  In the following discussion of physical properties

653: of individual clouds, we consider only the nine clouds that have more

654: than 1 sight line with physical measurements.

655: 

656: \subsection{\it Distance Limits}

657: 

658: Although a detailed look at the distances of the 15 LISM clouds is

659: beyond the scope of this paper, we can immediately place distance

660: constraints based on the distance of our background sources and

661: provide some insight into the three dimensional structure of the LISM.

662: In Table~\ref{tab:sumprop}, we list the distance of the closest star

663: with absorption from the cloud, which provides an upper limit to the

664: distance of the cloud.  All of the clouds lie within 15 pc, and half

665: lie within $\sim$5 pc, which is much smaller than the volume of the

666: Local Bubble, but consistent with the large projected surface area

667: that these clouds subtend.  The distribution of many clouds with a

668: range of dynamical properties in such a small volume, makes collisions

669: between clouds a real possibility.  The implications of such

670: interactions are explored in \S~\ref{sec:collide}.

671: 

672: Although the G Cloud has a more stringent distance upper limit than

673: the LIC, since the temperature and velocity of the interstellar

674: material that is flowing into the solar system is consistent with

675: early estimates of LIC material \citep{mobius04}, implying that the

676: Sun is currently inside the LIC (although, see \S~\ref{sec:licg} for a

677: detailed discussion of this topic).  However, since LIC absorption is

678: not observed in all directions (e.g., toward the Galactic Center) and

679: since the Sun is moving in roughly the direction of the Galactic

680: Center and the G Cloud (Figure~\ref{fig:all}), the heliosphere has

681: been thought to be at the very edge of the LIC \citep{redfield00}.

682: %A lower limit constraint on the distance of LISM clouds is calculated

683: %from the farthest star within 10$^{\circ}$ of a cloud boundary that is

684: %still closer than the closest cloud member.

685: 

686: 

687: 

688: %[I have deleted the second paragraph because it does not say anything

689: %useful.]

690: 

691: %Estimating a lower limit to a cloud is more difficult.

692: %A lower limit constraint could be placed for a sight line in which

693: %absorption is detection in a distant star, but is not detected toward

694: %a closer star along the same line of sight.  Since, in the process of

695: %determining cloud boundaries, we specifically avoid including stars

696: %that are inconsistent with the derived velocity vector, we are not

697: %sensitive to such scenarios.  Instead, we searched the database for

698: %all stars within 10$^{\circ}$ of a cloud boundary, that are closer

699: %than the closest cloud member.  The farthest such star, therefore,

700: %provides the strongest lower limit constraint.  Note that this assumes

701: %the cloud boundary extends 10$^{\circ}$ beyond the borders shown in

702: %Figures~\ref{fig:lic}--\ref{fig:cet}.  A more detailed look at the

703: %three dimensional structure of these clouds (i.e., their column

704: %densities, and therefore thicknesses) will be addressed in an upcoming

705: %paper.

706: 

707: \subsection{\it Volume Filling Factor of the Warm LISM \label{sec:fill}}

708: 

709: We have not yet created a full three-dimensional morphological model

710: of the LISM, but with a few assumptions and a simple toy model, we can

711: estimate the volume filling factor of the warm partially ionized gas

712: in the LISM.  First, we assume that all of the warm LISM material is

713: located within 15 pc of the Sun.  Although the LISM is often

714: considered to be the volume of material within the Local Bubble, which

715: extends out to roughly 100 pc in all directions, it seems that most of

716: the warm material is located only a short distance from the Sun. This

717: is shown, for example, in Figure~14 in \citet{redfield04sw}, where the

718: average number of absorbers per unit distance levels off at a distance

719: of $\sim$15 pc.  No significant correlation exists between the

720: observed line width or column density and the distance of the

721: background star.  Therefore, it is unlikely that unrecognized line

722: blends along more distant sight lines are the cause of the observed

723: leveling off of the average number of absorbers, but is indicative of

724: the true distribution of warm gas in the LISM.  Based on Figure~14 of

725: \citet{redfield04sw}, there are on average $\sim$1.7 absorbers per

726: sight line.  Therefore, the projected surface area of all LISM clouds

727: should total $\sim$1.7$ \times 4\pi$.

728: 

729: Initially, we assume that all of the warm LISM clouds are similar in

730: size and and density to the LIC.  We assume that all warm clouds have

731: a radius of 1.5 pc and a total hydrogen density of 0.2 cm$^{-3}$,

732: obtained from measurements of the \ion{He}{1} volume density streaming

733: into the solar system from \citet{gloeckler04}, the \ion{H}{1} to

734: \ion{He}{1} ratio of the LISM from \citet{dupuis95}, and the

735: three-dimensional model of the LIC from \citet{redfield00}.  In

736: addition, the assumed radius and density result in a full cloud

737: hydrogen column density of $\sim$2$ \times 10^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$, which

738: matches the typical observed hydrogen column density

739: \citep{redfield04sw}.  

740: 

741: We ran 1000 simulations of cloud distributions, for a range of total

742: warm clouds ($n$) in the LISM from $n = $ 1--100 clouds, where all

743: clouds were randomly centered at distances from 0--15 pc.  Since

744: clouds are not allowed to overlap, only one cloud can surround the

745: solar system, that is, a LIC analog.  In order to more closely match

746: the model with the observed LISM, we have assumed the LIC projected

747: surface area of 18270 square degrees for the LIC analog, see

748: Table~\ref{tab:sumprop}, instead of 41250 square degrees.  The

749: remaining clouds projected surface areas were calculated based on

750: their size, geometry, and distance.  In the spherical cloud scenario,

751: the solution to an average of 1.7 absorbers per sight line leads to

752: $\sim$55 clouds within 15 pc, and a volume filling factor of warm

753: partially ionized material of $\sim$5.5\%.

754: 

755: We also ran a suite of simulations varying the geometry (i.e.,

756: ellipsoids with a range of aspect ratios from 1.33:1 to 10:1, both

757: flattened (i.e., pancakes) and elongated (i.e., cigars)) and fraction

758: of ellipsoid to spherical (which ranged from 0.3 to 1.0).  The

759: orientation of all clouds were determined randomly.  Non-spherical

760: geometries naturally lead to larger volume filling factors and fewer

761: clouds, since a greater total volume can be produced with fewer clouds

762: without necessarily increasing the projected surface area.  The volume

763: filling factors that resulted ranged from 5.5\% to 19\%.

764: 

765: Figure~\ref{fig:area} compares the projected surface area distribution

766: of our sample with two of our idealized simulations.  The distribution

767: of observed projected surface areas matches fairly well with that

768: predicted for both the $\sim$55 spherical LIC-like clouds within 15

769: pc, and a simulation of 35 clouds, half of which are ellipsoids with an

770: elongated aspect ratio of 10:1.  There is an observational bias toward

771: detecting the nearest clouds with the largest projected surface areas.

772: We restricted our dynamical cloud modeling to collections of gas that

773: had at least 4 sight lines with which to determine a velocity vector.

774: 

775: About 18.8\% of absorbers are not accounted for in our 15 cloud

776: dynamical model of the LISM. The missing absorbers may represent

777: detections of more distant and smaller projected surface area clouds.

778: If we assume that we have detected all clouds with a $\log$ surface

779: area $>$ 3.1 ($\sim$1260 square degrees), which is the lower limit of

780: the LISM clouds with measured velocity vectors (see

781: Table~\ref{tab:sumprop}), we can estimate the number of sight lines

782: that probe ``undetected'' clouds, or clouds with a $\log$ surface area

783: $<$ 3.1, (see Figure~\ref{fig:area}).  Our toy models have 10.2--11.9

784: clouds with $\log$ surface area $>$ 3.1, slightly lower, but similar

785: to the 15 observed clouds.  The total projected surface area for all

786: clouds with $\log$ surface area $>$ 3.1 range from 55290 to 60430

787: square degrees in our simulations.  This matches well the total

788: projected surface area of the observed clouds (57830 square degrees).

789: With an estimate of the total projected surface area of ``undetected''

790: clouds, and the assumption that all sight lines are uniformly

791: distributed, we can predict the percentage of observed components that

792: will be left over, after those associated with the large nearby clouds

793: are removed.  The percentage of unassociated velocity components in

794: the simulations are between 14.5\% and 21.5\%, which matches closely

795: the percentage of components in our database (18.8\%) that are

796: unassigned, which allows for the possibility that the absorbing

797: material associated with these components is indeed located within

798: $\sim$15\,pc, even though the background star is much further away.

799: 

800: \section{WHERE CLOUDS COLLIDE \label{sec:collide}}

801: 

802: \subsection{\it The ``Ring of Fire'' Around the G Cloud}

803: 

804: Figure~\ref{fig:all} shows the projected morphologies of all 15

805: clouds, which collectively cover more than 90\% of the sky.  The LIC

806: and G Clouds clearly dominate the sky, and contain large areas where

807: one or the other is the only absorber along the line of sight.  At the

808: boundaries of the LIC and G clouds, several overlapping absorbers are

809: typically present, particularly near $l$ from 40$^{\circ}$ to

810: 80$^{\circ}$ and $b$ from --15$^{\circ}$ to +30$^{\circ}$, as well as

811: near $l$ from 270$^{\circ}$ to 320$^{\circ}$ and $b$ from

812: +20$^{\circ}$ to +50$^{\circ}$ and from --70$^{\circ}$ to

813: --30$^{\circ}$.  These areas at the boundaries of the LIC and G clouds

814: may be dynamical interaction zones, which produce ``new'' clouds with

815: significantly different kinematic properties.  We refer to the active

816: boundary of the G Cloud where the G and LIC clouds may be colliding as

817: the ``Ring of Fire'', in analogy to the Pacific Ocean ``Ring of Fire''

818: where dominant tectonic plates (here interstellar clouds) interact,

819: resulting in a highly dynamic interaction zone that gives rise to

820: earthquakes and volcanos (here interstellar shocks, heating, or

821: turbulent flows).

822: 

823: One example of this interaction may be the Mic Cloud whose morphology

824: appears to mirror the adjacent sections of the LIC and G clouds, as

825: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:part}.  At positive Galactic latitudes, where

826: the projected morphologies of the LIC, G, and Mic clouds are

827: coincident, the median predicted radial velocity difference between

828: the LIC and G clouds is $\sim$5.5 km~s$^{-1}$.  The Mic Cloud may have

829: been created by the faster G Cloud colliding with the LIC, which is

830: moving $\sim$5.5 km~s$^{-1}$ slower in the radial direction.

831: 

832: 

833: \subsection{\it Cloud Interactions, Turbulence, and Shocks}

834: 

835: Except for the LIC, many clouds have only 3--5 sight lines with

836: measurements of physical properties, and six of the clouds have one or

837: no sight lines with measured physical properties. As a result, it is

838: difficult to explore the homogeneity or variation of properties across

839: an individual cloud.  Small-scale variations are not observed in the

840: warm LISM clouds, based on identical absorption properties of nearby

841: binary stars (e.g., $\alpha$ Cen A and B,

842: \citealt{linsky96,lallement95}; and $\alpha$ CMa A and B

843: \citealt{lallement94,hebrard99}), and by the lack of significant

844: variation among a sample of 18 closely spaced Hyades stars, down to

845: scales between 0.1--1 pc \citep{redfield01}.  Therefore, we may expect

846: that the physical properties of LISM clouds are relatively

847: homogeneous, or at least slowly varying within a cloud.

848: 

849: Table~\ref{tab:sumprop} lists the weighted mean values of physical

850: properties for all cloud members, as well as the weighted average

851: standard deviation, which gives an indication of how tightly the

852: values are scattered about the weighted mean.  For example, $D($Fe$)$ in

853: the LIC, even though there are 12 measurements, much more than any

854: other cloud, it has the lowest weighted average standard deviation,

855: indicating that little variation is detected across the LIC.  In

856: contrast, due to the a wide range of values in the Hyades and Mic

857: clouds, there is a large weighted average variance (although these

858: clouds have only a few measurements).  In particular, note the

859: anomalous depletion measurement of G191-B2B associated with the Hyades

860: Cloud, see Table~\ref{lism4_hyadestable}.  The $\sim$8.6~km~s$^{-1}$

861: component, consistent dynamically and spatially with the Hyades Cloud,

862: is detected in both low-ionization ions (e.g., \ion{D}{1}, \ion{N}{1},

863: \ion{O}{1}, \ion{Mg}{2}, etc, \citealt{lemoine96,redfield04sw}) and

864: high-ionization ions (e.g., \ion{C}{4}, \citealt{vennes01}).  The

865: nature of the absorbing material along this line of sight is not

866: well known, and the high-ionization material may be associated with

867: nebular circumstellar material surrounding G191-B2B

868: \citep{bannister03}.  Although such contamination may be present along

869: some sight lines in our sample, the need in this analysis to bring

870: together a large number of independent LISM measurements aids in

871: reducing and identifying anomalous data points.  Indeed, the high

872: weighted average standard deviation of depletion in the Hyades Cloud,

873: clearly identifies the G191-B2B sight line as anomalous.  Henceforth,

874: we assume all measurements sample the physical properties of the LISM,

875: although highly deviant data points may indicate interesting sight

876: lines that require additional observations and further attention.

877: 

878: If we assume we can estimate an individual cloud's mean properties by

879: assuming that clouds are approximately homogeneous, then we can use

880: the few available physical measurements to make a reasonable estimate

881: of the cloud properties, and search for possible correlations.  For

882: example, the Mic Cloud, already identified by its filamentary

883: morphology and location at the boundary of the LIC and G clouds, has

884: the highest temperature ($\langle T \rangle = 9900$ K) and one of the

885: highest turbulent velocities ($\langle \xi \rangle = 3.1$ \kms). These

886: properties support the argument that the Mic Cloud is the result of

887: the collision of the LIC and G Clouds.

888: 

889: The weighted mean depletions of iron [$D({\rm Fe})$] and magnesium

890: [$D({\rm Mg})$] are plotted versus the weighted mean turbulent

891: velocity ($\xi$) for the nine clouds in Figure~\ref{fig:xidep}.  A

892: clear correlation is evident.  For iron, the linear correlation

893: coefficient, $r = 0.69$, and the probability ($P_c$) that this

894: distribution could be drawn from an uncorrelated parent population is

895: 1.7\%, while for magnesium, $r = 0.73$ and $P_c = 1.2\%$.

896: 

897: The correlation of small depletions with high turbulence suggests that

898: the destruction of dust grains has returned these ions to the gas

899: phase.  A possible alternative explanation is that statistically,

900: clouds with higher turbulence have higher percentage ionization of

901: hydrogen, since the depletions were computed assuming that hydrogen is

902: neutral.  However, using the ionization model of the LIC produced by

903: \citet{slavin02}, taking the ionization of hydrogen, magnesium, and

904: iron into account only produces a 0.05 to 0.10 decrease in the

905: measured depletion.  This adjustment is significantly less than the

906: typical 1$\sigma$ error for the weighted mean depletion for individual

907: clouds, and much less than the $\sim$1 dex variation seen over all LISM

908: clouds.  Therefore, since we currently have no evidence for a

909: correlation between turbulence and ionization structure and the

910: depletion adjustment using LIC ionization models is small, we consider

911: here possible dust destruction explanations for the observed

912: correlation.  Dust destruction in the warm partially ionized ISM is

913: often discussed in the context of shocks produced by supernovae

914: \citep{savage96,jones94}.  Shocks may also be produced in the LISM

915: from either turbulent motions possibly driven by shear flow

916: interactions between clouds, or from direct macroscopic collisions of

917: clouds.  The thermal sound speed $c_s = \sqrt{nkT/\rho}$, using LISM

918: densities from \citet{redfield06} and the mean LISM temperature from

919: \citet{redfield04tt}, is $\sim$8 \kms.  For the clouds with the

920: highest turbulence (e.g., Mic and Eri), the sight line-averaged

921: turbulent velocity is $\sim$3.5 \kms, which results in a turbulent

922: Mach number ($M_{\xi}$) of $\sim$0.4.  Although there may be regions

923: of enhanced turbulent motions, perhaps at the interaction boundaries

924: of clouds, average turbulent velocities are not high enough to produce

925: shocks.

926: 

927: Macroscopic velocity differences between the 15 LISM clouds can be

928: significantly greater than the sound speed if they are interacting.

929: Figure~\ref{fig:dvs} shows the distribution of predicted velocity

930: differences ($\Delta$$V$) between the 15 LISM clouds when multiple

931: clouds are predicted to lie along a line of sight.  For a uniform

932: sample of hypothetical individual sight lines across the entire sky,

933: we predict the number of the 15 LISM clouds are predicted to lie along

934: the line of sight based on their boundaries shown in

935: Figures~\ref{fig:lic}--\ref{fig:cet}.  If multiple clouds are

936: predicted to lie along the line of sight, we calculate all possible

937: cloud velocity differences, which are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:dvs}.

938: For example, a hypothetical sight line that traverses two clouds

939: (e.g., at $l=270^{\circ}$ and $b=0^{\circ}$ where the G and Cet clouds

940: overlap) will provide one velocity difference measurement in

941: Figure~\ref{fig:dvs}, whereas, if three clouds are predicted along the

942: line of sight (e.g., at $l=165^{\circ}$ and $b=0^{\circ}$ where the

943: LIC, Aur and Hyades clouds overlap), three possible velocity

944: difference measurements are shown.  Calculating the radial and

945: transverse components of a velocity vector of LISM material along an

946: arbitrary line of sight requires projecting the velocity vector

947: ($V_0$, $l_0$, $b_0$) along the radial and transverse unit vectors in

948: the arbitrary direction ($l$, $b$).  The magnitude of the radial and

949: transverse velocities are calculated from

950: \begin{eqnarray}

951: V_r = V_0 (\cos b \cos b_0 \cos (l_0-l) + \sin b_0 \sin b),\\

952: V_l = V_0 \cos b_0 \sin (l_0 - l),\phantom{(\cos b + \sin b_0 \sin b)}\\

953: V_b = V_0 (\sin b_0 \cos b - \cos b_0 \sin b \cos (l_0-l)).

954: \end{eqnarray}

955: Since we do not have a fully three-dimensional model of these LISM

956: clouds (i.e., we do not know which clouds are in fact adjacent and

957: actively interacting), we do not know whether all these

958: velocity differences are actually realized.  However, a large

959: percentage of the possible velocity differences are supersonic and

960: thus could cause shocks where adjacent clouds meet.

961: 

962: The question of grain destruction/erosion involves many factors

963: including grain size, composition, porosity, the relative speed of

964: collisions with other grains or particles, compression ratio in

965: shocks, grain charge, magnetic fields, and turbulence. This topic has

966: been addressed by a number of authors \citep*[e.g.,][]{jones96}.

967: \citet{frisch99} and others showed that the observed Fe and Mg ions in

968: warm gas like the LIC comes from grain destruction whether by shocks,

969: grain-grain collisions, or other physical processes. Since most of the

970: Fe and Mg in the LIC is locked up in grains, small differences in

971: grain destruction between or within clouds can produce large

972: differences in the gas phase abundances of these elements. High-speed

973: supernova-generated shocks (50--200 km~s$^{-1}$) are often cited as

974: the main grain destruction method, but grain-grain collisions with

975: relative velocities exceeding only 2.7 km~s$^{-1}$ for silicate grains

976: or 1.2 km~s$^{-1}$ for carbonaceous grains can lead to grain

977: shattering \citep{jones96}. Velocities exceeding these values are

978: typically found between two clouds along the same line of sight

979: (Figure~\ref{fig:dvs}) and are similar to the measured cloud turbulent

980: velocities. Given that interstellar dust grains are typically charged

981: and the ISM is magnetized and turbulent, \citet*{yan04} showed that

982: MHD turbulence can accelerate the grains through gyroresonance

983: interactions leading to supersonic grain speeds, grain-grain

984: collisions and shattering. This process could be the physical basis

985: for the observed correlation of low metal depletions with high

986: turbulent velocities.

987: 

988: 

989: 

990: \subsection{\it Connection with Radio Scintillation Screens}

991: 

992: For many years, radio observers have called attention to a rapid

993: variability of certain quasars and pulsars on hourly-to-yearly

994: timescales that has been attributed to interstellar scintillation.

995: The scattering screens responsible for the scintillation are generally

996: assumed to be turbulent regions of enhanced electron density.

997: Extensive monitoring of a source and measurement of time delays as

998: seen by widely separated radio telescopes provide critical data for

999: estimating the distance to the scattering screen, as well as its size,

1000: transverse velocity, and shape.  In their VLA survey of northern sky

1001: AGN for rapid intraday variability, \citet{lovell07} found that

1002: 56\% of the sources are variable on timescales of hours to several

1003: days, but rapid variability indicative of nearby scattering screens is

1004: rare indicating that nearby scattering screens cover only a small

1005: fraction of the sky.

1006: 

1007: 

1008: Studies of intraday variability of three quasars (J1819+3845, PKS

1009: 1257-326, and PKS 0405-385) and two pulsars (PSR J0437-4715 and PSR

1010: B1133+16) find that some scattering screens lie within the LISM at

1011: short distances from the Sun, although the distances have

1012: significant uncertainty and are model dependent.  For example,

1013: \citet{dennettthorpe03} and \citet{macquart06} estimate that the

1014: scattering screen toward J1819+3845 is only 1--12 pc from the Sun.

1015: \citet{bignall06} found that the scattering screen toward PKS

1016: 1257-3826 lies at a distance somewhat closer than 10 pc.

1017: \citet*{rickett02} place the anisotropic scattering screen toward PKS

1018: 0405-385 at between 2 and 30 pc from the Sun with a preferred distance

1019: of 25 pc, though analysis of more recent data by

1020: \citet{kedziorachudczer06} suggests a distance of about 10 pc.

1021: \citet*{smirnova06} show that the scattering screen toward PSR

1022: J0437-4715 also lies at about 10 pc from the Sun and is likely the

1023: same screen that causes the scintillation of PKS 0405-385, which is

1024: only 10 degrees away.  If so, this scattering screen is extended

1025: rather than very restricted in size.  \citet{putney06} present six

1026: pulsars that show evidence of multiple scintillation screens along

1027: their line of sight, the vast majority of which are located well

1028: beyond the Local Bubble.  One of their nearest pulsars, PSR B1133+16, shows

1029: evidence for a nearby scintillation screen only 21.6 pc from the Sun.

1030: Several other scintillating quasars, or intraday variables, show

1031: annual cycles that may provide constraints on the distance to the

1032: scintillation screen, such as B0917+624 \citep{rickett01,jauncey01}

1033: and PKS 1519-273 \citep{jauncey03}.  

1034: 

1035: We find that the five nearby scattering screens all lie close to the

1036: edges of several of our dynamical clouds, as indicated in

1037: Figure~\ref{fig:all}, where the direction of the radio scintillation

1038: sources are indicated by star symbols.  In particular, three of the

1039: five lie near the interface of the LIC and G clouds.  The radial

1040: velocity differences between the LIC and G clouds in these directions

1041: are generally quite small (i.e., $\sim$1 km s$^{-1}$).  However, the

1042: transverse motion differences between the LIC and G clouds in these

1043: directions can be quite substantial, reaching 6--7 km s$^{-1}$.  These

1044: regions of significant transverse velocity differences could induce

1045: shear flows and generate turbulence.  The annual variation of the

1046: scintillation timescale of intraday variables, is a function of the

1047: diffraction pattern of the screen and its transverse velocity.  With

1048: our rigid velocity vectors of LISM clouds, we are able to calculate

1049: the transverse motions of local clouds.  Even with just a handful of

1050: sight lines, we can investigate the relationship between the LISM and

1051: the scintillation screens, but many more radio scintillation and high

1052: resolution LISM absorption line observations are needed together with

1053: a fully three dimensional morphological and kinematic model of the

1054: warm LISM, in order to fully explore the physical connection between

1055: warm clouds and scintillation screens.  \citet*{linsky07} more fully

1056: explore the relationship between scattering screens and LISM clouds,

1057: including a direct comparison of the transverse velocities of the

1058: screens and the clouds.

1059: 

1060: 

1061: 

1062: 

1063: \subsection{\it Connection with Cold Dense Structures in the LISM}

1064: 

1065: In their 21-cm absorption line study of the warm and cold neutral

1066: interstellar gas, \citet{heiles03b} mapped a region of cold gas

1067: centered at $l = 225^{\circ}$, $b = 44^{\circ}$ that extends over

1068: 30$^{\circ}$ in Galactic longitude.  They found that the gas

1069: temperature is about 25 K.  \citet{meyer06} observed narrow

1070: \ion{Na}{1} absorption due to this cold cloud toward a series of

1071: nearby stars and confirm a cloud temperature $\sim$20 K and turbulent

1072: velocity of $\sim$0.4 km~s$^{-1}$.  Based on the well-known distances

1073: of the observed stars, they were able to show that the distance to

1074: this cold gas must be less than 41 pc, with a corresponding aspect

1075: ratio (length perpendicular to the line of sight versus length along

1076: the line of sight) of 70:1.  However, the cloud could be as close as 2

1077: pc.  Thus the cold gas structure is located inside the LISM.  

1078: 

1079: The Galactic coordinates of the cold gas correspond to a region that

1080: is not clearly a part of any individual warm cloud (see

1081: Figure~\ref{fig:all}), but near the boundaries of several clouds,

1082: including the LIC, G, Aur, Gem, and Leo clouds.  In particular, the

1083: Gem Cloud has a high radial velocity in the direction of the cold

1084: cloud, $\sim$24 km~s$^{-1}$, whereas the other clouds have modest

1085: radial velocities, ranging from 8--12 km~s$^{-1}$.  The resulting high

1086: radial velocity differences are indicated in Figure~\ref{fig:dvs}.

1087: Along this line of sight, the high radial velocity ($\sim$24

1088: km~s$^{-1}$) Gem cloud may be compressing material as it collides with

1089: slow moving Leo and Aur ($\sim$12 km~s$^{-1}$), and ultimately the LIC

1090: ($\sim$10 km~s$^{-1}$).  The heliocentric velocity ($\sim$11.5

1091: km~s$^{-1}$) of the cold material observed by \citet{meyer06} matches

1092: well with the velocity of the slow moving Leo and Aur clouds, as

1093: expected if it was formed by the compression of the Gem cloud against

1094: the Leo and Aur clouds, and the cold material may actually be

1095: physically associated with the warm material observed in the Leo and

1096: Aur clouds.

1097: 

1098: The collision of warm gas clouds to produce small sheetlike cold

1099: neutral clouds has been explored through detailed simulations of a

1100: turbulent interstellar medium

1101: \citep[e.g.,][]{vazquezsemadeni06,audit05}.  Also \citet{mckee77}

1102: predicted that cold neutral clouds must be surrounded by warm clouds

1103: (in pressure equilibrium in their model) to shield the cold gas from

1104: UV and X-ray heating and ionization.  Our rigid velocity vector

1105: solutions certainly indicate that in the direction of the cold cloud,

1106: relatively large kinematic differences exist between clouds (e.g, the

1107: Gem cloud is moving $\sim$12 km~s$^{-1}$ faster than the Leo and Aur

1108: clouds, and $\sim$14 km~s$^{-1}$ faster than the LIC and G clouds).

1109: Given that the farthest distance limit for the five clouds in the

1110: proximity of the cold cloud line of sight is 11.1 pc (the Leo Cloud),

1111: and that the limit on the Gem Cloud is 6.7 pc, these five clouds are

1112: in very close proximity in distance as well, and collisions between

1113: these warm clouds are likely.  In particular, it is critical to have a

1114: collision of material along the radial direction to maximize the

1115: chances of detection.  Because of the extreme aspect ratio of this

1116: cloud, if it were oriented along the line of sight, the projection on

1117: the sky would be extremely small.  Further work on the distances of

1118: both the warm LISM clouds and the cold cloud is needed to determine

1119: whether there is a spatial and dynamical connection between these

1120: interstellar structures.

1121: 

1122: \subsection{\it The Transition between the LIC and G Clouds\label{sec:licg}}

1123: 

1124: Until now, we have assumed that individual clouds are rigid

1125: structures, each with a simple velocity vector characterizing all of

1126: the included sight lines within the radial velocity measurement

1127: errors. This simple approximation may not be valid, as shown by two

1128: sets of data. One, noted in Section~\ref{sec:coll}, is that the

1129: velocity and, to a lesser degree of significance, the temperature of

1130: interstellar gas flowing through the heliosphere are intermediate in

1131: value between the corresponding quantities in the LIC and G clouds

1132: (see Table~\ref{tab:vecs}), implying that the heliosphere lies in a

1133: transition zone between the two clouds where there is a gradient in

1134: properties. The other evidence is that \citet{redfield01} noted that

1135: the components assigned to the LIC in the direction of the Hyades have

1136: radial velocities 2.9 km~s$^{-1}$ smaller than predicted by the

1137: \citet{lallement92} LIC vector.  These smaller radial velocities

1138: suggest a deceleration of the LIC flow in the forward direction, where

1139: it may be interacting with the Hyades Cloud. We now find that these

1140: absorption components have radial velocities $\sim$1.0 km~s$^{-1}$

1141: smaller than predicted by the new LIC vector. As a test we removed

1142: these 16 components from the LIC vector calculation and found that the

1143: vector velocity amplitude increased by only 0.39 km~s$^{-1}$. This

1144: does not change our conclusion that the heliosphere is in a transition

1145: zone between the LIC and G clouds, or that the LIC is decelerated at

1146: its forward edge.

1147: 

1148: We also considered whether the LIC and G Clouds are really one cloud

1149: with a gradient of physical properties across their combined length.

1150: We tested this hypothesis by plotting the physical parameters for the

1151: LIC and G cloud sight lines with respect to angle relative to the

1152: downwind direction (Figure~\ref{fig:grad1}) and with respect to the

1153: hydrogen column density (Figure~\ref{fig:grad2}).  No correlation

1154: exists between angle and hydrogen column density.  Since the LIC Cloud

1155: is mostly in the downwind direction and the G Cloud mostly in the

1156: upwind direction, the angle from the downwind direction is a

1157: discriminant between the two clouds. With only one exception, the gas

1158: temperatures for LIC sight lines are all larger than for the G Cloud

1159: sight lines, implying that the two cloud approximation is valid. We

1160: note, however, a trend of higher LIC Cloud temperatures with

1161: increasing $N($\ion{H}{1}$)$ and toward the cross-wind direction where

1162: the two Clouds meet.  The turbulent velocities do not show a definite

1163: trend with angle or $N($\ion{H}{1}$)$.  If there were a velocity

1164: gradient through these clouds, one would expect larger line broadening

1165: (and thus higher turbulent velocity) in the downwind and upwind

1166: directions, which is not seen. Finally, the metal depletions,

1167: [$D($Mg$)$ and $D($Fe$)$], show clear trends of decreasing with larger

1168: $N($\ion{H}{1}$)$ and increasing with angle, with both the LIC and G

1169: Cloud sight lines fitting these trends.  On average, the LIC is

1170: significantly more depleted than the G cloud.  The trend of decreasing

1171: gas-phase abundances as a function of increasing $N($\ion{H}{1}$)$ is

1172: well documented along distant sight lines (e.g., \citealt{wakker00};

1173: \citealt*{jenkins86}).  This implies that the processes that remove

1174: and replace ions to the gas phase occur on scales smaller than the LIC

1175: and G clouds, and that the volume density of the LIC and G clouds may

1176: not be constant.  Alternatively, decreasing $D($Mg$)$ and $D($Fe$)$

1177: with increasing $N($\ion{H}{1}$)$ may be explained if \ion{H}{1} is

1178: photoionized at the edges of clouds and is increasingly neutral with

1179: increasing \ion{H}{1} through the centers of clouds due to shielding

1180: of UV radiation from the cloud itself.  Thus, while the fraction of

1181: magnesium and iron in the gas phase relative to the total amount of

1182: hydrogen remains the same throughout, $D($Mg$)$ and $D($Fe$)$ will

1183: decrease as hydrogen becomes predominately neutral.  On the basis of

1184: the temperature and turbulent velocity data, we conclude that the

1185: evidence supports the idea that the LIC and G Clouds are separate

1186: entities with their own distinct properties, but there is likely a

1187: narrow transition zone between the two clouds where the heliosphere is

1188: now located.

1189: 

1190: \section{CONCLUSIONS}

1191: 

1192: We have created a database consisting of interstellar radial

1193: velocities and gas physical properties for 157 sight lines toward

1194: stars within 100~pc of the Sun. The data were extracted from

1195: high-resolution UV spectra obtained with the GHRS and STIS instruments

1196: on the {\em HST} and ground-based \ion{Ca}{2} spectra. This database

1197: has allowed us to create a dynamical model of the local interstellar

1198: medium\footnote{Projected and transverse velocities, along with

1199: probable cloud membership based on the projected cloud morphologies,

1200: can be calculated for any sight line at

1201: http://cobalt.as.utexas.edu/$\sim$sredfield/LISMdynamics.html.}

1202: including 15 warm gas clouds, which we define as contiguous parcels of

1203: interstellar gas with consistent kinematical properties.  Although

1204: measurements of physical properties are sparse, for the LIC, which has

1205: the most such measurements, the properties seem to be homogeneous.

1206: Using this database, we find that:

1207: 

1208: \begin{enumerate}

1209: 

1210: \item The flow velocity vectors for these 15 clouds fit 81.2\% of the

1211: velocity components in the database to within the radial velocity

1212: measurement errors.  These clouds all lie within 15~pc of the Sun. The

1213: remaining velocity components may be produced in more distant clouds

1214: that subtend smaller angles with less than the four lines of sight

1215: needed to compute a useful velocity vector.

1216: 

1217: \item The directions of most of these velocity vectors are roughly

1218: parallel with their flow from the Scorpio-Centaurus Association.  The

1219: velocity amplitudes have a considerable range, leading us to compute

1220: relative velocities between adjacent clouds that are often supersonic

1221: and therefore capable of producing shocks.

1222: 

1223: \item About one-third of the clouds appear to have filamentary

1224: structures.

1225: 

1226: \item All of the clouds for which we have physical properties along

1227: three or more sight lines are warm with mean temperatures in the range

1228: of 5300--9900~K, although the uncertainties in these measurements are

1229: often large.  We estimate that between 5.5\% and 19\% of the LISM

1230: within 15~pc of the Sun is filled with warm gas clouds.

1231: 

1232: \item We find a strong correlation of low metal depletion with large

1233: turbulent velocity. Since high turbulence suggests the presence or

1234: recent existence of shocks, this correlation could be explained by

1235: shock dissipation of dust grains that returns the metals to the gas

1236: phase.

1237: 

1238: \item Contrary to previous work, the heliosphere appears to be located

1239: in a transition zone between the LIC and G Clouds. The evidence for

1240: this is that the temperature and velocity of the interstellar gas

1241: flowing through the heliosphere are both intermediate between these

1242: quantities measured in the LIC and G Clouds.  The deviation in

1243: velocity ranges from 2.4--2.9$\sigma$ and in temperature the deviation

1244: is less significant ranging from 0.9--1.4$\sigma$.  Additional

1245: observations of multiple ions are required to increase the number of

1246: temperature measurements of the LIC and G clouds in order to increase

1247: the significance of any possible deviation between these clouds and

1248: {\it in situ} measurements.  Previous work based on much smaller

1249: velocity data sets placed the heliosphere inside but near the edge of

1250: the LIC.

1251: 

1252: \item The G Cloud is surrounded by and likely interacting with a

1253: number of other clouds. We refer to this active boundary as the ``Ring

1254: of Fire''.  The filamentary-shaped Mic Cloud has the same shape as the

1255: boundary of the G and LIC clouds and may be indicative of an

1256: interaction between these two clouds.  The high temperature and

1257: turbulence of the Mic Cloud support this conclusion.

1258: 

1259: \item The nearby scintillation screens toward three quasars and two

1260: pulsars are located near cloud boundaries, and three of the five are

1261: in directions where the LIC and G Clouds may be interacting.  The

1262: large transverse relative velocities between these two clouds could

1263: produce the turbulence that is the cause of the scintillation.

1264: 

1265: \item The nearby cold cloud recently observed by \citet{heiles03b} and

1266: \citet{meyer06} is in a direction where it could be surrounded by

1267: several warm clouds.  We find evidence for significant compression

1268: based on large macroscopic velocity differences between warm clouds in

1269: the direction of the cold cloud.  The alignment of the cold cloud

1270: matches well with the alignment of the high-velocity Gem Cloud, which

1271: may be colliding with the slower moving Leo, Aur, and LIC clouds.

1272: Compression of warm material may be the origin mechanism for such an

1273: isolated cold cloud in the Local Bubble.  

1274: 

1275: \end{enumerate}

1276: 

1277: \acknowledgements 

1278: 

1279: We thank the referee for the careful and thoughtful comments, they

1280: contributed much to the quality of the paper.   We would also like

1281: to thank Dr.\ Brian Wood for his useful comments.  S.R. would like to

1282: acknowledge support for this work provided by NASA through Hubble

1283: Fellowship grant HST-HF-01190.01 awarded by the Space Telescope

1284: Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of

1285: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract

1286: NAS 5-26555.  Support for {\it HST} observing programs \#9525 and

1287: \#10236 was provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope

1288: Science Institute.  This research has made use of NASA's Astrophysics

1289: Data System Bibliographic Services and the SIMBAD database, operated

1290: at CDS, Strasbourg, France.  Some of the data presented in this paper

1291: were obtained from the Multimission Archive at the Space Telescope

1292: Science Institute (MAST).

1293: 

1294: {\it Facilities:} \facility{HST (GHRS, STIS)}

1295: 

1296: %facilities acknowledgement

1297: %ads

1298: %simbad

1299: 

1300: %\bibliographystyle{apj}

1301: %\bibliography{/home/cobalt/sredfield/bigbib/bigbib}

1302: %\bibliography{bigbib}

1303: 

1304: \begin{thebibliography}{89}

1305: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1306: 

1307: \bibitem[{{Asplund} {et~al.}(2005){Asplund}, {Grevesse}, \&

1308:   {Sauval}}]{asplund05}

1309: {Asplund}, M., {Grevesse}, N., \& {Sauval}, A.~J. 2005, in ASP Conf. Ser. 336:

1310:   Cosmic Abundances as Records of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis in

1311:   honor of David L. Lambert, ed. T.~G. {Barnes} \& F.~N. {Bash} (San Francisco:

1312:   ASP), 25

1313: 

1314: \bibitem[{{Audit} \& {Hennebelle}(2005)}]{audit05}

1315: {Audit}, E., \& {Hennebelle}, P. 2005, \aap, 433, 1

1316: 

1317: \bibitem[{{Bannister} {et~al.}(2003){Bannister}, {Barstow}, {Holberg}, \&

1318:   {Bruhweiler}}]{bannister03}

1319: {Bannister}, N.~P., {Barstow}, M.~A., {Holberg}, J.~B., \& {Bruhweiler}, F.~C.

1320:   2003, \mnras, 341, 477

1321: 

1322: \bibitem[{{Baranov}(1990)}]{baranov90}

1323: {Baranov}, V.~B. 1990, Space Science Reviews, 52, 89

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[{{Bergh{\"o}fer} \& {Breitschwerdt}(2002)}]{berghofer02}

1326: {Bergh{\"o}fer}, T.~W., \& {Breitschwerdt}, D. 2002, \aap, 390, 299

1327: 

1328: \bibitem[{{Bevington} \& {Robinson}(1992)}]{bevington92}

1329: {Bevington}, P.~R., \& {Robinson}, D.~K. 1992, {Data Reduction and Error

1330:   Analysis for the Physical Sciences}, 2nd edn. (New York: McGraw-Hill)

1331: 

1332: \bibitem[{{Bignall} {et~al.}(2006){Bignall}, {Macquart}, {Jauncey}, {Lovell},

1333:   {Tzioumis}, \& {Kedziora-Chudczer}}]{bignall06}

1334: {Bignall}, H.~E., {Macquart}, J.-P., {Jauncey}, D.~L., {Lovell}, J.~E.~J.,

1335:   {Tzioumis}, A.~K., \& {Kedziora-Chudczer}, L. 2006, \apj, 652, 1050

1336: 

1337: \bibitem[{{Blades} {et~al.}(1980){Blades}, {Wynne-Jones}, \&

1338:   {Wayte}}]{blades80}

1339: {Blades}, J.~C., {Wynne-Jones}, I., \& {Wayte}, R.~C. 1980, \mnras, 193, 849

1340: 

1341: \bibitem[{{Brandeker} {et~al.}(2004){Brandeker}, {Liseau}, {Olofsson}, \&

1342:   {Fridlund}}]{brandeker04}

1343: {Brandeker}, A., {Liseau}, R., {Olofsson}, G., \& {Fridlund}, M. 2004, \aap,

1344:   413, 681

1345: 

1346: \bibitem[{{Cox}(2005)}]{cox05}

1347: {Cox}, D.~P. 2005, \araa, 43, 337

1348: 

1349: \bibitem[{{Cox} \& {Helenius}(2003)}]{cox03}

1350: {Cox}, D.~P., \& {Helenius}, L. 2003, \apj, 583, 205

1351: 

1352: \bibitem[{{Crawford} \& {Dunkin}(1995)}]{crawford95}

1353: {Crawford}, I.~A., \& {Dunkin}, S.~K. 1995, \mnras, 273, 219

1354: 

1355: \bibitem[{{Crutcher}(1982)}]{crutcher82}

1356: {Crutcher}, R.~M. 1982, \apj, 254, 82

1357: 

1358: \bibitem[{{Dehnen} \& {Binney}(1998)}]{dehnen98}

1359: {Dehnen}, W., \& {Binney}, J.~J. 1998, \mnras, 298, 387

1360: 

1361: \bibitem[{{Dennett-Thorpe} \& {de Bruyn}(2003)}]{dennettthorpe03}

1362: {Dennett-Thorpe}, J., \& {de Bruyn}, A.~G. 2003, \aap, 404, 113

1363: 

1364: \bibitem[{{Dupuis} {et~al.}(1995){Dupuis}, {Vennes}, {Bowyer}, {Pradhan}, \&

1365:   {Thejll}}]{dupuis95}

1366: {Dupuis}, J., {Vennes}, S., {Bowyer}, S., {Pradhan}, A.~K., \& {Thejll}, P.

1367:   1995, \apj, 455, 574

1368: 

1369: \bibitem[{{Field} {et~al.}(1969){Field}, {Goldsmith}, \& {Habing}}]{field69}

1370: {Field}, G.~B., {Goldsmith}, D.~W., \& {Habing}, H.~J. 1969, \apjl, 155, L149

1371: 

1372: \bibitem[{{France} {et~al.}(2007){France}, {Roberge}, {Lupu}, {Redfield}, \&

1373:   {Feldman}}]{france07}

1374: {France}, K., {Roberge}, A., {Lupu}, R.~E., {Redfield}, S., \& {Feldman}, P.~D.

1375:   2007, ArXiv e-prints, 707

1376: 

1377: \bibitem[{{Frisch}(2006)}]{frisch06book}

1378: {Frisch}, P.~C. 2006, in {Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol.~338,

1379:   Solar Journey: The Significance of our Galactic Environment for the

1380:   Heliosphere and Earth}, ed. P.~C. {Frisch} (Dordrecht: Springer)

1381: 

1382: \bibitem[{{Frisch} {et~al.}(2002){Frisch}, {Grodnicki}, \& {Welty}}]{frisch02}

1383: {Frisch}, P.~C., {Grodnicki}, L., \& {Welty}, D.~E. 2002, \apj, 574, 834

1384: 

1385: \bibitem[{{Frisch} \& {York}(1983)}]{frisch83}

1386: {Frisch}, P.~C., \& {York}, D.~G. 1983, \apjl, 271, L59

1387: 

1388: \bibitem[{{Frisch} {et~al.}(1999)}]{frisch99}

1389: {Frisch}, P.~C., {et~al.} 1999, \apj, 525, 492

1390: 

1391: \bibitem[{{G{\'e}nova} \& {Beckman}(2003)}]{genova03}

1392: {G{\'e}nova}, R., \& {Beckman}, J.~E. 2003, \apjs, 145, 355

1393: 

1394: \bibitem[{{Gloeckler} {et~al.}(2004)}]{gloeckler04}

1395: {Gloeckler}, G., {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 426, 845

1396: 

1397: \bibitem[{{Graham} {et~al.}(1995){Graham}, {Levenson}, {Hester}, {Raymond}, \&

1398:   {Petre}}]{graham95}

1399: {Graham}, J.~R., {Levenson}, N.~A., {Hester}, J.~J., {Raymond}, J.~C., \&

1400:   {Petre}, R. 1995, \apj, 444, 787

1401: 

1402: \bibitem[{{Gry} {et~al.}(1995){Gry}, {Lemonon}, {Vidal-Madjar}, {Lemoine}, \&

1403:   {Ferlet}}]{gry95}

1404: {Gry}, C., {Lemonon}, L., {Vidal-Madjar}, A., {Lemoine}, M., \& {Ferlet}, R.

1405:   1995, \aap, 302, 497

1406: 

1407: \bibitem[{{H{\'e}brard} {et~al.}(1999){H{\'e}brard}, {Mallouris}, {Ferlet},

1408:   {Koester}, {Lemoine}, {Vidal-Madjar}, \& {York}}]{hebrard99}

1409: {H{\'e}brard}, G., {Mallouris}, C., {Ferlet}, R., {Koester}, D., {Lemoine}, M.,

1410:   {Vidal-Madjar}, A., \& {York}, D. 1999, \aap, 350, 643

1411: 

1412: \bibitem[{{Heiles} \& {Troland}(2003)}]{heiles03b}

1413: {Heiles}, C., \& {Troland}, T.~H. 2003, \apj, 586, 1067

1414: 

1415: \bibitem[{{Hobbs} {et~al.}(1985){Hobbs}, {Vidal-Madjar}, {Ferlet}, {Albert}, \&

1416:   {Gry}}]{hobbs85}

1417: {Hobbs}, L.~M., {Vidal-Madjar}, A., {Ferlet}, R., {Albert}, C.~E., \& {Gry}, C.

1418:   1985, \apjl, 293, L29

1419: 

1420: \bibitem[{{Jackson} {et~al.}(2003){Jackson}, {Werner}, \&

1421:   {Gautier}}]{jackson03}

1422: {Jackson}, T., {Werner}, M., \& {Gautier}, III, T.~N. 2003, \apjs, 149, 365

1423: 

1424: \bibitem[{{Jauncey} {et~al.}(2003){Jauncey}, {Johnston}, {Bignall}, {Lovell},

1425:   {Kedziora-Chudczer}, {Tzioumis}, \& {Macquart}}]{jauncey03}

1426: {Jauncey}, D.~L., {Johnston}, H.~M., {Bignall}, H.~E., {Lovell}, J.~E.~J.,

1427:   {Kedziora-Chudczer}, L., {Tzioumis}, A.~K., \& {Macquart}, J.-P. 2003, \apss,

1428:   288, 63

1429: 

1430: \bibitem[{{Jauncey} \& {Macquart}(2001)}]{jauncey01}

1431: {Jauncey}, D.~L., \& {Macquart}, J.-P. 2001, \aap, 370, L9

1432: 

1433: \bibitem[{{Jenkins} {et~al.}(1986){Jenkins}, {Savage}, \&

1434:   {Spitzer}}]{jenkins86}

1435: {Jenkins}, E.~B., {Savage}, B.~D., \& {Spitzer}, Jr., L. 1986, \apj, 301, 355

1436: 

1437: \bibitem[{{Jones} {et~al.}(1996){Jones}, {Tielens}, \& {Hollenbach}}]{jones96}

1438: {Jones}, A.~P., {Tielens}, A.~G.~G.~M., \& {Hollenbach}, D.~J. 1996, \apj, 469,

1439:   740

1440: 

1441: \bibitem[{{Jones} {et~al.}(1994){Jones}, {Tielens}, {Hollenbach}, \&

1442:   {McKee}}]{jones94}

1443: {Jones}, A.~P., {Tielens}, A.~G.~G.~M., {Hollenbach}, D.~J., \& {McKee}, C.~F.

1444:   1994, \apj, 433, 797

1445: 

1446: \bibitem[{{Kalas} {et~al.}(2004){Kalas}, {Liu}, \& {Matthews}}]{kalas04}

1447: {Kalas}, P., {Liu}, M.~C., \& {Matthews}, B.~C. 2004, Science, 303, 1990

1448: 

1449: \bibitem[{{Kedziora-Chudczer}(2006)}]{kedziorachudczer06}

1450: {Kedziora-Chudczer}, L. 2006, \mnras, 369, 449

1451: 

1452: \bibitem[{{Lagrange-Henri} {et~al.}(1990){Lagrange-Henri}, {Ferlet},

1453:   {Vidal-Madjar}, {Beust}, {Gry}, \& {Lallement}}]{lagrangehenri90}

1454: {Lagrange-Henri}, A.~M., {Ferlet}, R., {Vidal-Madjar}, A., {Beust}, H., {Gry},

1455:   C., \& {Lallement}, R. 1990, \aaps, 85, 1089

1456: 

1457: \bibitem[{{Lallement} \& {Bertin}(1992)}]{lallement92}

1458: {Lallement}, R., \& {Bertin}, P. 1992, \aap, 266, 479

1459: 

1460: \bibitem[{{Lallement} {et~al.}(1994){Lallement}, {Bertin}, {Ferlet},

1461:   {Vidal-Madjar}, \& {Bertaux}}]{lallement94}

1462: {Lallement}, R., {Bertin}, P., {Ferlet}, R., {Vidal-Madjar}, A., \& {Bertaux},

1463:   J.~L. 1994, \aap, 286, 898

1464: 

1465: \bibitem[{{Lallement} {et~al.}(1995){Lallement}, {Ferlet}, {Lagrange},

1466:   {Lemoine}, \& {Vidal-Madjar}}]{lallement95}

1467: {Lallement}, R., {Ferlet}, R., {Lagrange}, A.~M., {Lemoine}, M., \&

1468:   {Vidal-Madjar}, A. 1995, \aap, 304, 461

1469: 

1470: \bibitem[{{Lallement} {et~al.}(2004){Lallement}, {Raymond}, {Bertaux},

1471:   {Qu{\'e}merais}, {Ko}, {Uzzo}, {McMullin}, \& {Rucinski}}]{lallement04back}

1472: {Lallement}, R., {Raymond}, J.~C., {Bertaux}, J.-L., {Qu{\'e}merais}, E., {Ko},

1473:   Y.-K., {Uzzo}, M., {McMullin}, D., \& {Rucinski}, D. 2004, \aap, 426, 867

1474: 

1475: \bibitem[{{Lallement} {et~al.}(2003){Lallement}, {Welsh}, {Vergely}, {Crifo},

1476:   \& {Sfeir}}]{lallement03}

1477: {Lallement}, R., {Welsh}, B.~Y., {Vergely}, J.~L., {Crifo}, F., \& {Sfeir}, D.

1478:   2003, \aap, 411, 447

1479: 

1480: \bibitem[{{Lehner} {et~al.}(2003){Lehner}, {Jenkins}, {Gry}, {Moos}, {Chayer},

1481:   \& {Lacour}}]{lehner03}

1482: {Lehner}, N., {Jenkins}, E.~B., {Gry}, C., {Moos}, H.~W., {Chayer}, P., \&

1483:   {Lacour}, S. 2003, \apj, 595, 858

1484: 

1485: \bibitem[{{Lemoine} {et~al.}(1996){Lemoine}, {Vidal-Madjar}, {Bertin},

1486:   {Ferlet}, {Gry}, \& {Lallement}}]{lemoine96}

1487: {Lemoine}, M., {Vidal-Madjar}, A., {Bertin}, P., {Ferlet}, R., {Gry}, C., \&

1488:   {Lallement}, R. 1996, \aap, 308, 601

1489: 

1490: \bibitem[{{Linsky} {et~al.}(2000){Linsky}, {Redfield}, {Wood}, \&

1491:   {Piskunov}}]{linsky00}

1492: {Linsky}, J.~L., {Redfield}, S., {Wood}, B.~E., \& {Piskunov}, N. 2000, \apj,

1493:   528, 756

1494: 

1495: \bibitem[{{Linsky} {et~al.}(2007){Linsky}, {Rickett}, \& 

1496:   {Redfield}}]{linsky07}

1497: {Linsky}, J.~L., {Rickett}, B.~J., \& {Redfield}, S. 2007, \apj, submitted

1498: 

1499: \bibitem[{{Linsky} \& {Wood}(1996)}]{linsky96}

1500: {Linsky}, J.~L., \& {Wood}, B.~E. 1996, \apj, 463, 254

1501: 

1502: \bibitem[{{Linsky} {et~al.}(2006)}]{linsky06}

1503: {Linsky}, J.~L., {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 647, 1106

1504: 

1505: \bibitem[{{Lovell} {et~al.}(2007)}]{lovell07}

1506: {Lovell}, J.~E.~J., {et~al.} 2007, in ASP Conf. Ser. 365, SINS --- Small

1507:   Ionized and Neutral Structures in the Diffuse Interstellar Medium, ed.

1508:   M.~{Haverkorn} \& W.~M. {Goss} (San Francisco: ASP), 279

1509: 

1510: \bibitem[{{Macquart} \& {de Bruyn}(2006)}]{macquart06}

1511: {Macquart}, J.-P., \& {de Bruyn}, A.~G. 2006, \aap, 446, 185

1512: 

1513: \bibitem[{{McClintock} {et~al.}(1978){McClintock}, {Henry}, {Linsky}, \&

1514:   {Moos}}]{mcclintock78}

1515: {McClintock}, W., {Henry}, R.~C., {Linsky}, J.~L., \& {Moos}, H.~W. 1978, \apj,

1516:   225, 465

1517: 

1518: \bibitem[{{McCray} \& {Snow}(1979)}]{mccray79}

1519: {McCray}, R., \& {Snow}, Jr., T.~P. 1979, \araa, 17, 213

1520: 

1521: \bibitem[{{McKee} \& {Ostriker}(1977)}]{mckee77}

1522: {McKee}, C.~F., \& {Ostriker}, J.~P. 1977, \apj, 218, 148

1523: 

1524: \bibitem[{{Meyer} {et~al.}(2006){Meyer}, {Lauroesch}, {Heiles}, {Peek}, \&

1525:   {Engelhorn}}]{meyer06}

1526: {Meyer}, D.~M., {Lauroesch}, J.~T., {Heiles}, C., {Peek}, J.~E.~G., \&

1527:   {Engelhorn}, K. 2006, \apjl, 650, L67

1528: 

1529: \bibitem[{{M{\"o}bius} {et~al.}(2004)}]{mobius04}

1530: {M{\"o}bius}, E., {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 426, 897

1531: 

1532: \bibitem[{{M{\"u}ller} {et~al.}(2006){M{\"u}ller}, {Frisch}, {Florinski}, \&

1533:   {Zank}}]{muller06}

1534: {M{\"u}ller}, H.-R., {Frisch}, P.~C., {Florinski}, V., \& {Zank}, G.~P. 2006,

1535:   \apj, 647, 1491

1536: 

1537: \bibitem[{{Putney} \& {Stinebring}(2006)}]{putney06}

1538: {Putney}, M.~L., \& {Stinebring}, D.~R. 2006, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and

1539:   Astrophysics Supplement, 6, 233

1540: 

1541: \bibitem[{{Redfield}(2006)}]{redfield06}

1542: {Redfield}, S. 2006, in ASP Conf. Ser. 352, New Horizons in Astronomy, Frank N.

1543:   Bash Symposium 2005, ed. S.~J. {Kannappan}, S.~{Redfield}, J.~E.

1544:   {Kessler-Silacci}, M.~{Landriau}, \& N.~{Drory} (San Francisco: ASP), 79

1545: 

1546: \bibitem[{{Redfield} {et~al.}(2007){Redfield}, {Kessler-Silacci}, \&

1547:   {Cieza}}]{redfield07lismdd}

1548: {Redfield}, S., {Kessler-Silacci}, J.~E., \& {Cieza}, L.~A. 2007, \apj, 661,

1549:   944

1550: 

1551: \bibitem[{{Redfield} \& {Linsky}(2000)}]{redfield00}

1552: {Redfield}, S., \& {Linsky}, J.~L. 2000, \apj, 534, 825

1553: 

1554: \bibitem[{{Redfield} \& {Linsky}(2001)}]{redfield01}

1555: ---. 2001, \apj, 551, 413

1556: 

1557: \bibitem[{{Redfield} \& {Linsky}(2002)}]{redfield02}

1558: ---. 2002, \apjs, 139, 439

1559: 

1560: \bibitem[{{Redfield} \& {Linsky}(2004{\natexlab{a}})}]{redfield04sw}

1561: ---. 2004{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 602, 776

1562: 

1563: \bibitem[{{Redfield} \& {Linsky}(2004{\natexlab{b}})}]{redfield04tt}

1564: ---. 2004{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 613, 1004

1565: 

1566: \bibitem[{{Rickett} {et~al.}(2002){Rickett}, {Kedziora-Chudczer}, \&

1567:   {Jauncey}}]{rickett02}

1568: {Rickett}, B.~J., {Kedziora-Chudczer}, L., \& {Jauncey}, D.~L. 2002, \apj, 581,

1569:   103

1570: 

1571: \bibitem[{{Rickett} {et~al.}(2001){Rickett}, {Witzel}, {Kraus}, {Krichbaum}, \&

1572:   {Qian}}]{rickett01}

1573: {Rickett}, B.~J., {Witzel}, A., {Kraus}, A., {Krichbaum}, T.~P., \& {Qian},

1574:   S.~J. 2001, \apjl, 550, L11

1575: 

1576: \bibitem[{{Roberge} {et~al.}(2005){Roberge}, {Weinberger}, {Redfield}, \&

1577:   {Feldman}}]{roberge05}

1578: {Roberge}, A., {Weinberger}, A.~J., {Redfield}, S., \& {Feldman}, P.~D. 2005,

1579:   \apjl, 626, L105

1580: 

1581: \bibitem[{{Savage} \& {Sembach}(1996)}]{savage96}

1582: {Savage}, B.~D., \& {Sembach}, K.~R. 1996, \araa, 34, 279

1583: 

1584: \bibitem[{{Slavin} \& {Frisch}(2002)}]{slavin02}

1585: {Slavin}, J.~D., \& {Frisch}, P.~C. 2002, \apj, 565, 364

1586: 

1587: \bibitem[{{Smirnova} {et~al.}(2006){Smirnova}, {Gwinn}, \&

1588:   {Shishov}}]{smirnova06}

1589: {Smirnova}, T.~V., {Gwinn}, C.~R., \& {Shishov}, V.~I. 2006, \aap, 453, 601

1590: 

1591: \bibitem[{{Stokes}(1978)}]{stokes78}

1592: {Stokes}, G.~M. 1978, \apjs, 36, 115

1593: 

1594: \bibitem[{{Vallerga} {et~al.}(2004){Vallerga}, {Lallement}, {Lemoine},

1595:   {Dalaudier}, \& {McMullin}}]{vallerga04}

1596: {Vallerga}, J., {Lallement}, R., {Lemoine}, M., {Dalaudier}, F., \& {McMullin},

1597:   D. 2004, \aap, 426, 855

1598: 

1599: \bibitem[{{Vallerga} {et~al.}(1993){Vallerga}, {Vedder}, {Craig}, \&

1600:   {Welsh}}]{vallerga93}

1601: {Vallerga}, J.~V., {Vedder}, P.~W., {Craig}, N., \& {Welsh}, B.~Y. 1993, \apj,

1602:   411, 729

1603: 

1604: \bibitem[{{V{\'a}zquez-Semadeni} {et~al.}(2006){V{\'a}zquez-Semadeni}, {Ryu},

1605:   {Passot}, {Gonz{\'a}lez}, \& {Gazol}}]{vazquezsemadeni06}

1606: {V{\'a}zquez-Semadeni}, E., {Ryu}, D., {Passot}, T., {Gonz{\'a}lez}, R.~F., \&

1607:   {Gazol}, A. 2006, \apj, 643, 245

1608: 

1609: \bibitem[{{Vennes} \& {Lanz}(2001)}]{vennes01}

1610: {Vennes}, S., \& {Lanz}, T. 2001, \apj, 553, 399

1611: 

1612: \bibitem[{{Wakker} \& {Mathis}(2000)}]{wakker00}

1613: {Wakker}, B.~P., \& {Mathis}, J.~S. 2000, \apjl, 544, L107

1614: 

1615: \bibitem[{{Welsh} {et~al.}(1994){Welsh}, {Craig}, {Vedder}, \&

1616:   {Vallerga}}]{welsh94}

1617: {Welsh}, B.~Y., {Craig}, N., {Vedder}, P.~W., \& {Vallerga}, J.~V. 1994, \apj,

1618:   437, 638

1619: 

1620: \bibitem[{{Welty} {et~al.}(1994){Welty}, {Hobbs}, \& {Kulkarni}}]{welty94}

1621: {Welty}, D.~E., {Hobbs}, L.~M., \& {Kulkarni}, V.~P. 1994, \apj, 436, 152

1622: 

1623: \bibitem[{{Witte}(2004)}]{witte04}

1624: {Witte}, M. 2004, \aap, 426, 835

1625: 

1626: \bibitem[{{Witte} {et~al.}(1993){Witte}, {Rosenbauer}, {Banaszkiewicz}, \&

1627:   {Fahr}}]{witte93}

1628: {Witte}, M., {Rosenbauer}, H., {Banaszkiewicz}, M., \& {Fahr}, H. 1993,

1629:   Advances in Space Research, 13, 121

1630: 

1631: \bibitem[{{Wolfire} {et~al.}(1995{\natexlab{a}}){Wolfire}, {Hollenbach},

1632:   {McKee}, {Tielens}, \& {Bakes}}]{wolfire95a}

1633: {Wolfire}, M.~G., {Hollenbach}, D., {McKee}, C.~F., {Tielens}, A.~G.~G.~M., \&

1634:   {Bakes}, E.~L.~O. 1995{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 443, 152

1635: 

1636: \bibitem[{{Wolfire} {et~al.}(1995{\natexlab{b}}){Wolfire}, {McKee},

1637:   {Hollenbach}, \& {Tielens}}]{wolfire95b}

1638: {Wolfire}, M.~G., {McKee}, C.~F., {Hollenbach}, D., \& {Tielens}, A.~G.~G.~M.

1639:   1995{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 453, 673

1640: 

1641: \bibitem[{{Wood}(2004)}]{wood04}

1642: {Wood}, B.~E. 2004, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 1, 2

1643: 

1644: \bibitem[{{Wood} {et~al.}(1996){Wood}, {Alexander}, \& {Linsky}}]{wood96}

1645: {Wood}, B.~E., {Alexander}, W.~R., \& {Linsky}, J.~L. 1996, \apj, 470, 1157

1646: 

1647: \bibitem[{{Wood} {et~al.}(2000){Wood}, {Ambruster}, {Brown}, \&

1648:   {Linsky}}]{wood00}

1649: {Wood}, B.~E., {Ambruster}, C.~W., {Brown}, A., \& {Linsky}, J.~L. 2000, \apj,

1650:   542, 411

1651: 

1652: \bibitem[{{Wood} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{a}}){Wood}, {M{\"u}ller}, {Zank},

1653:   {Linsky}, \& {Redfield}}]{wood05let}

1654: {Wood}, B.~E., {M{\"u}ller}, H.-R., {Zank}, G., {Linsky}, J., \& {Redfield}, S.

1655:   2005{\natexlab{a}}, \apjl, 628, L143

1656: 

1657: \bibitem[{{Wood} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{b}}){Wood}, {Redfield}, {Linsky},

1658:   {M{\"u}ller}, \& {Zank}}]{wood05sup}

1659: {Wood}, B.~E., {Redfield}, S., {Linsky}, J.~L., {M{\"u}ller}, H.-R., \& {Zank},

1660:   G.~P. 2005{\natexlab{b}}, \apjs, 159, 118

1661: 

1662: \bibitem[{{Yan} {et~al.}(2004){Yan}, {Lazarian}, \& {Draine}}]{yan04}

1663: {Yan}, H., {Lazarian}, A., \& {Draine}, B.~T. 2004, \apj, 616, 895

1664: 

1665: \bibitem[{{Zank}(1999)}]{zank99}

1666: {Zank}, G.~P. 1999, Space Science Reviews, 89, 413

1667: 

1668: \end{thebibliography}

1669: 

1670: 

1671: 

1672: %figures

1673: \clearpage

1674: \begin{figure}

1675: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f1small.ps}

1676: \caption{Four projections of the LIC boundaries in Galactic

1677: coordinates.  All sight lines used in our analysis are displayed.  The

1678: large blue symbols indicate sight lines used to calculate the LIC

1679: velocity vector.  The medium-sized green symbols indicate sight lines

1680: with projected velocities that are consistent with the estimated

1681: vector, but are considered part of another cloud (see \S~2.2), while

1682: the small red symbols indicate lines of sight that are inconsistent

1683: with the calculated velocity vector.  The boundaries of the LIC are

1684: drawn to encompass all consistent sight lines (i.e., blue symbols),

1685: while avoiding all other lines of sight (i.e., red and green symbols)

1686: .  The upwind heliocentric direction of the velocity vector is

1687: indicated by the $\otimes$ symbol, while the downwind heliocentric

1688: direction is indicated by the $\odot$ symbol.  The four projections

1689: from upper left and moving counter-clockwise are: a Hammer projection

1690: of Galactic coordinates with the Galactic center in the middle, a

1691: Hammer projection of Galactic coordinates with the Galactic

1692: anti-center in the middle, a Lambert projection from the south

1693: Galactic pole, and a Lambert projection from the north Galactic

1694: pole. \label{fig:lic}}

1695: \end{figure}

1696: 

1697: \clearpage

1698: \begin{figure}

1699: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f2small.ps}

1700: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the G Cloud. \label{fig:g}}

1701: \end{figure}

1702: 

1703: \clearpage

1704: \begin{figure}

1705: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f3small.ps}

1706: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the Blue Cloud. \label{fig:blue}}

1707: \end{figure}

1708: 

1709: \clearpage

1710: \begin{figure}

1711: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f4small.ps}

1712: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the Aql Cloud.  Note the

1713: small number of coincident velocities (i.e., green medium-sized

1714: symbols).  The Aql Cloud velocity vector is significantly different

1715: than the average LISM flow, but successfully characterizes 9 closely

1716: spaced sight lines.\label{fig:aql}}

1717: \end{figure}

1718: 

1719: \clearpage

1720: \begin{figure}

1721: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f5small.ps}

1722: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the Eri Cloud. \label{fig:eri}}

1723: \end{figure}

1724: 

1725: \clearpage

1726: \begin{figure}

1727: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f6small.ps}

1728: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the Aur Cloud. \label{fig:aur}}

1729: \end{figure}

1730: 

1731: \clearpage

1732: \begin{figure}

1733: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f7small.ps}

1734: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the Hyades Cloud. \label{fig:hyades}}

1735: \end{figure}

1736: 

1737: \clearpage

1738: \begin{figure}

1739: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f8small.ps}

1740: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the Mic Cloud. \label{fig:mic}}

1741: \end{figure}

1742: 

1743: \clearpage

1744: \begin{figure}

1745: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f9small.ps}

1746: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the Oph Cloud. \label{fig:oph}}

1747: \end{figure}

1748: 

1749: \clearpage

1750: \begin{figure}

1751: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f10small.ps}

1752: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the Gem Cloud. \label{fig:gem}}

1753: \end{figure}

1754: 

1755: \clearpage

1756: \begin{figure}

1757: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f11small.ps}

1758: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the NGP Cloud. \label{fig:ngp}}

1759: \end{figure}

1760: 

1761: \clearpage

1762: \begin{figure}

1763: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f12small.ps}

1764: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the Leo Cloud. \label{fig:leo}}

1765: \end{figure}

1766: 

1767: \clearpage

1768: \begin{figure}

1769: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f13small.ps}

1770: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the Dor Cloud. \label{fig:dor}}

1771: \end{figure}

1772: 

1773: \clearpage

1774: \begin{figure}

1775: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f14small.ps}

1776: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the Vel Cloud. \label{fig:vel}}

1777: \end{figure}

1778: 

1779: \clearpage

1780: \begin{figure}

1781: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.9in]{f15small.ps}

1782: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:lic} but for the Cet Cloud.  Note that the boundaries of the Cet Cloud include a couple sight lines that were not used in the velocity vector calculation which nonetheless have consistent projected velocities (i.e., green symbol sight lines), and therefore may traverse Cet Cloud material.

1783: \label{fig:cet}}

1784: \end{figure}

1785: 

1786: 

1787: \clearpage

1788: \begin{figure}

1789: \plotone{f16.eps}

1790: \caption{Distributions of fit parameters, downwind heliocentric ({\it

1791: top}) velocity ($V_0$), and direction in Galactic coordinates ($l_0$,

1792: $b_0$) for 15 clouds identified within 15 pc.  The distribution of

1793: downwind velocity and direction relative to the Local Standard of Rest

1794: (LSR) is shown in the {\it bottom} panels, where the upstream solar

1795: motion relative to the LSR ($V_{\odot} = 13.4$ km~s$^{-1}$; $l_{\odot}

1796: = 207.7^{\circ}$; $b_{\odot} = -32.4^{\circ}$), was derived by

1797: \citet{dehnen98}.  The bin sizes in $V_0$ are 4 km~s$^{-1}$,

1798: 9$^{\circ}$ in $l_0$, and 6$^{\circ}$ in $b_0$.  All velocity vectors

1799: appear to be driven in the same direction, although at a range of

1800: velocities.

1801: \label{fig:solhist}}

1802: \end{figure}

1803: 

1804: \clearpage

1805: \begin{figure}

1806: \epsscale{1.}

1807: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=6.9in]{f17small.ps}

1808: \caption{Heliocentric velocity vectors of all 15 clouds.  The vectors

1809: are centered in the direction of the center of the cloud and at the

1810: distance of the closest star with the cloud's absorption velocity

1811: and point downwind.  The Sun is moving

1812: in roughly the opposite direction as the LISM clouds.  Starting from

1813: the top left and moving clockwise, the plots are viewed from $l =

1814: 230^{\circ}$ and $b = 45^{\circ}$, the North Galactic Pole ($b =

1815: 90^{\circ}$), the Galactic Center ($l = 0^{\circ}$ and $b =

1816: 0^{\circ}$), and Galactic East ($l = 90^{\circ}$ and $b = 0^{\circ}$).

1817: \label{fig:vecs}}

1818: \end{figure}

1819: 

1820: \clearpage

1821: \begin{figure}

1822: \epsscale{1.1} 

1823: \plottwo{f18a.eps}{f18b.eps}

1824: \caption{Histogram (black) of the observed angular areas of the 15

1825: nearby dynamical clouds, based on their projected morphologies shown

1826: in Figures~\ref{fig:lic}--\ref{fig:cet}.  The histograms on the {\it

1827: left} have bin sizes of 1000 square degrees, while the histograms on

1828: the {\it right} have bin sizes of 0.1 dex in logarithmic square

1829: degrees.  The red histogram indicates the average distribution of

1830: angular areas of the simple model of 55 randomly distributed spherical

1831: LIC-like clouds within 15 pc of the Sun, discussed in

1832: Section~\ref{sec:fill}.  This model leads to a volume filling factor

1833: of $\sim$5.5\%.  The blue histogram shows another simple simulation of

1834: 35 randomly oriented clouds in which half were ellipsoids with aspect

1835: ratios of 10:1.  Although this simulation also reproduces the observed

1836: projected surface areas of the 15 large clouds fairly well, the volume

1837: filling factor in this case is $\sim$19\%.

1838: \label{fig:area}}

1839: \end{figure}

1840: 

1841: \clearpage

1842: \begin{figure}

1843: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=6.9in]{f19small.ps}

1844: \caption{All dynamical cloud morphologies are overlaid and colorcoded

1845: as in Figure~\ref{fig:vecs}.  The upwind heliocentric direction of the

1846: velocity vector for each cloud is indicated by the $\otimes$ symbol,

1847: while the downwind heliocentric direction is indicated by the $\odot$

1848: symbol.  The Sun is moving approximately antiparallel to the LISM

1849: clouds.  The star symbols indicate sight lines of radio scintillation

1850: sources, and the series of three small clouds centered at $l =

1851: 222^{\circ}$ and $b = 44^{\circ}$ are the \ion{H}{1} contours from

1852: \citet{heiles03b}, of the cold cloud recently identified to be within

1853: the Local Bubble by \citet{meyer06}.

1854: \label{fig:all}}

1855: \end{figure}

1856: 

1857: 

1858: \clearpage

1859: \begin{figure}

1860: \begin{center}

1861: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=4.9in]{f20asmall.ps}

1862: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=4.9in]{f20bsmall.ps}

1863: \end{center}

1864: \caption{Two subsets of dynamical cloud morphologies are overlaid and

1865: colorcoded as in Figure~\ref{fig:vecs}.  The upwind heliocentric

1866: direction of the velocity vectors are indicated by the $\otimes$

1867: symbols, while the downwind heliocentric direction is indicated by the

1868: $\odot$ symbols.  The {\it top} plot shows the projected morphological

1869: similarities shared by the LIC, G, and Mic clouds, indicating that

1870: clouds like the Mic could result from collisions of other clouds, in

1871: this case the LIC and G clouds.  The {\it bottom} plot shows the

1872: clouds in close angular proximity to the cold cloud (shown here are

1873: \ion{H}{1} contours from \citet{heiles03b}, which are the series of

1874: three small clumps centered at $l = 222^{\circ}$ and $b =

1875: 44^{\circ}$), which was identified to be within the Local Bubble by

1876: \citet{meyer06}.  Note the alignment of the cold cloud matches well

1877: with the alignment of the high-velocity Gem Cloud in the same

1878: location.  The compressional macroscopic motions between the

1879: surrounding warm dynamical clouds (e.g., the Gem Cloud with the slower

1880: moving Leo, Aur, and LIC clouds), shown here may be the origin

1881: mechanism of the observed cold material.

1882: \label{fig:part}}

1883: \end{figure}

1884: 

1885: 

1886: \clearpage

1887: \begin{figure}

1888: %\plotone{f21.eps}

1889: \plottwo{f21a.eps}{f21b.eps}

1890: \caption{Distribution of the weighted mean values of turbulent

1891: velocity ($\xi$) and depletion of iron ($D($Fe$)$ and magnesium

1892: ($D($Mg$)$) for all clouds with more than one sight line having a

1893: turbulent velocity measurement.  The errors are the dispersion about

1894: the weighted mean.  The dashed line is a weighted minimum $\chi^2$

1895: linear fit to the data.  A clear correlation exists between cloud

1896: turbulent velocity and depletion for both elements, with a linear

1897: correlation coefficient $r = 0.69$ and a probability that the

1898: distribution could be drawn from an uncorrelated parent population of

1899: only $P_c = 1.7\%$ for iron and $r = 0.73$ and $P_c = 1.2\%$ for

1900: magnesium.  It is likely that regions of high turbulence result from

1901: the dynamical interactions of clouds, which in turn produce shocks and

1902: heat any dust, returning metal ions from the dust to the gas phase.

1903: \label{fig:xidep}}

1904: \end{figure}

1905: 

1906: 

1907: \clearpage

1908: \begin{figure}

1909: \epsscale{1.1} 

1910: \plotone{f22small.ps}

1911: \caption{ The distribution of cloud velocity differences between all

1912: 15 LISM clouds are shown here for all sight lines that are predicted

1913: to traverse multiple clouds based on the spatial distribution of

1914: clouds shown in Figure~\ref{fig:all}.  The predicted velocity

1915: components of all 15 clouds were calculated for a uniform sample of

1916: hypothetical lines of sight over the full sky.  Velocity differences

1917: between the LIC and G clouds in directions in which both are observed

1918: are indicated by the red histograms.  The mean thermal sound speed is

1919: $\sim$8 km~s$^{-1}$.  A significant fraction of possible velocity

1920: differences between LISM clouds include velocities greater than the

1921: thermal sound speed.  Distributions in the radial ({\it top}), and

1922: transverse ($l$, {\it middle}; $b$, {\it bottom}) Galactic directions

1923: are shown.  The blue histogram (scaled by a factor of 50) represents

1924: the macroscopic velocity differences for LISM material near the Leo

1925: cold cloud.  Significant compressional velocities of the warm LISM

1926: material in the radial direction may be a mechanism for the origin of

1927: the cold dense material observed by \citet{meyer06}.

1928: \label{fig:dvs}} 

1929: \end{figure}

1930: 

1931: \clearpage

1932: \begin{figure}

1933: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.3in]{f23small.ps}

1934: \caption{Comparison of LIC and G sight line physical properties as a

1935: function of angular distance from the LIC downwind direction.  Sight

1936: lines through each cloud are distinguished by color (red: LIC; pale

1937: pink: G) and symbol (circle: LIC; square: G).  Since the G Cloud is in

1938: the upstream direction, all G Cloud sight lines are at high

1939: $\Delta\theta$.  Except for one LIC value, all temperatures through

1940: the LIC are higher than the G Cloud temperatures.  A correlation with

1941: angle is evident in the depletion of magnesium ($r = 0.63$, $P_c =

1942: 0.012$\%) and iron ($r = 0.80$, $P_c = 0.0041$\%).

1943: \label{fig:grad1}}

1944: \end{figure}

1945: 

1946: \clearpage

1947: \begin{figure}

1948: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6.3in]{f24small.ps}

1949: \caption{Similar to Figure~\ref{fig:grad1}, but the comparison of LIC

1950: and G sight line physical properties is shown as a function of

1951: hydrogen column density.  Correlations are seen between hydrogen

1952: column density and depletion of magnesium ($r = -0.53$, $P_c =

1953: 0.12$\%) and iron ($r = -0.65$, $P_c = 0.15$\%).

1954: \label{fig:grad2}}

1955: \end{figure}

1956: 

1957: %\clearpage

1958: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

1959: \tablewidth{0pt}

1960: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

1961: \tablecaption{LIC Cloud Sight Line Properties \label{tab:licmem}}

1962: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other \\ 

1963: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b} \\}

1964: \startdata

1965: $\alpha$ CMa A & 48915 & 2.6 & $ 18.55$ & 0.12 & 17.2 &

1966:  8000$^{+500}_{-1000}$ & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.3 & $-0.75^{+0.15}_{-0.21}$ & $-0.54^{+0.17}_{-0.22}$ & \\

1967: $\alpha$ CMa B & 48915B &  2.6 & $ 17.60$ & 0.51 & 17.6 &

1968:  8000$^{+500}_{-1000}$ & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.3 &         &      & \\

1969: $\epsilon$ Eri & 22049 &  3.2 & $ 18.73$ & 0.70 & 17.8 &

1970:  7410$^{+860}_{-830}$ & 2.03$^{+0.41}_{-0.45}$ & $-1.03 \pm 0.17$ & $-0.81 \pm 0.12$ & \\

1971:  $\alpha$ CMi  & 61421 &  3.5 & $ 19.76$ & 0.78 & 17.9 &

1972:  6710$^{+660}_{-630}$ & 1.21$^{+0.35}_{-0.45}$ & $-1.13 \pm 0.07$ & $-1.31 \pm 0.10$ & Aur\\

1973: $\epsilon$ Ind & 209100 &  3.6 & $ -9.20$ & 0.02 & 18.0 &

1974: $<$9850 & &         &        & Vel\\

1975:    $\tau$ Cet  & 10700 &  3.6 & $ 12.34$ & 0.20 & 18.0 &

1976: $<$6700 & &         &        & G, Blue\\

1977:      40 Eri A  & 26965 &  5.0 & $ 21.73$ & 0.58 & 17.8 &

1978: $8120 \pm 450$ & 0.5$^{+1.2}_{-0.5}$ &         & $-0.90 \pm 0.10$ & \\

1979:  $\eta$ Cas A  & 4614 &  6.0 & $ 11.18$ & 0.67 &        &

1980:       & &         &        &  \\

1981:   $\alpha$ PsA & 216956 &  7.7 & $ -5.87$ & 0.42 &        &

1982:       & &         &        & Mic\\

1983:   $\alpha$ Lyr & 172167 &  7.8 & $-12.90$ & 0.30 &        &

1984:       & &         &        & G\\

1985:  $\chi^1$ Ori  & 39587 &  8.7 & $ 23.08$ & 0.38 & 17.8 &

1986:  7000$^{+730}_{-680}$ & 2.38$^{+0.15}_{-0.17}$ & $-1.03 \pm 0.07$ & $-0.74 \pm 0.09$ & \\

1987:  $\delta$ Eri  & 23249 &  9.0 & $ 19.60$ & 0.07 & 17.9 &

1988: $<$8900 & &         &        & Blue, Hyades\\

1989: $\kappa^1$ Cet & 20630 &  9.2 & $ 20.84$ & 0.31 & 17.5 &

1990:  5200$^{+1900}_{-1700}$ & 2.64$^{+0.28}_{-0.32}$ & $-1.01 \pm 0.17$ & $-0.68 \pm 0.16$ & \\

1991:        CF UMa  & 103095 &  9.2 & $  2.05$ & 1.19 &        &

1992:       & &         &        & \\

1993:   $\beta$ Gem  & 62509 & 10.3 & $ 19.65$ & 0.60 & 18.0 &

1994:  9000$^{+1600}_{-1500}$ & 1.67$^{+0.27}_{-0.32}$ & $-1.23 \pm 0.12$ & $-1.01 \pm 0.14$ & \\

1995:        EP Eri  & 17925 & 10.4 & $ 19.50$ & 0.88 & 18.0 &

1996: $8100 \pm 1300$ & 2.46 $\pm$ 1.45 &         & $-0.48 \pm 0.42$ & G, Blue\\

1997:  $\gamma$ Ser  & 142806 & 11.1 & $-18.19$ & 0.93 &        &

1998:       & &         &        & Mic, Leo\\

1999:        13 Per  & 16895 & 11.2 & $ 16.45$ & 0.46 &        &

2000:       & &         &        & \\

2001:        HR 1925 & 37394 & 12.2 & $ 17.50$ & 1.25 & 18.3 &  

2002: $<$9900 & &       &       & Aur\\

2003:  $\alpha$ Aur  & 34029 & 12.9 & $ 21.48$ & 0.82 & 18.2 &

2004:  6700$^{+1400}_{-1300}$ & 1.68$^{+0.32}_{-0.39}$ & $-1.21 \pm 0.06$ & $-0.95 \pm 0.10$ & \\

2005:          HR 8  & 166 & 13.7 & $  6.50$ & 0.44 & 18.3 &

2006: $<$10700 & &         &        & Eri, Hyades\\

2007:   $\alpha$ Oph & 159561 & 14.3 & $-22.57$ & 1.68 &        &

2008:       & &         &        & \\

2009:        72 Her  & 157214 & 14.4 & $-15.51$ & 0.33 &        &

2010:       & &         &        & \\

2011:   $\alpha$ Cep & 203280 & 15.0 & $  0.20$ & 0.54 &        &

2012:       & &         &        & \\

2013:  $\sigma$ Boo  & 128167 & 15.5 & $ -2.58$ & 0.63 &        &

2014:       & &         &        & \\

2015:        99 Her  & 165908 & 15.7 & $-17.43$ & 1.54 &        &

2016:       & &         &        & G\\

2017:   $\beta$ Cas  & 432 & 16.7 & $  9.15$ & 0.69 & 18.2 &

2018:  9760$^{+800}_{-880}$ & 0.0$^{+1.1}_{-0.0}$ & $-1.28 \pm 0.16$ & $-1.28 \pm 0.17$ & \\

2019:        DX Leo  & 82443 & 17.7 & $ 11.00$ & 0.22 & 17.7 &

2020: $8540 \pm 850$ & 1.78 $\pm$ 1.77 &         & $-0.83 \pm 0.20$ & \\

2021:  $\tau^6$ Eri  & 23754 & 17.9 & $ 16.99$ & 0.04 &        &

2022:       & &         &        & \\

2023:      V368 Cep  & 220140 & 19.7 & $  6.00$ & 0.19 & 18.0 &

2024: 12050$^{+820}_{-790}$ & 0.0$^{+1.0}_{-0.0}$ &         & $-0.78 \pm 0.17$ & \\

2025:   $\alpha$ Tri & 11443 & 19.7 & $ 17.89$ & 1.84 & 18.1 &

2026:  7700$^{+3100}_{-2600}$ & 0.0$^{+1.7}_{-0.0}$ & $-1.16 \pm 0.23$ & $-1.44 \pm 0.15$ & \\

2027:       HR 4345  & 97334 & 21.7 & $  4.30$ & 0.14 & 17.8 &

2028: $<$8700 & &         &        & NGP\\

2029:        PW And  & 1405 & 21.9 & $  8.50$ & 0.13 & 18.1 &

2030: 11300$^{+1900}_{-1800}$ & 0.0$^{+1.6}_{-0.0}$ &         & $-0.48 \pm 0.52$ & Eri, Hyades\\

2031:    SAO 136111  & 73350 & 23.6 & $ 12.00$ & 0.50 & 18.2 &

2032: $<$11400 & &         &        & G, Aur\\

2033:  $\delta$ UMa  & 106591 & 25.0 & $  3.80$ & 1.65 &        &

2034:       & &         &        & \\

2035:   $\beta$ Aur  & 40183 & 25.2 & $ 22.30$ & 1.74 &        &

2036:       & &         &        & \\

2037:  $\gamma$ UMa  & 103287 & 25.6 & $  4.40$ & 1.54 &        &

2038:       & &         &        & \\

2039:  $\lambda$ And & 222107 & 25.8 & $  6.50$ & 0.03 & 18.5 &

2040: $<$13100 & &         &       & Hyades \\

2041:  $\sigma$ Cet  & 15798 & 25.8 & $ 15.99$ & 0.81 &        &

2042:       & &         &        & \\

2043:  $\tau^3$ Eri  & 18978 & 26.4 & $ 15.90$ & 0.82 &        &

2044:       & &         &        & \\

2045:        HR 860  & 17948 & 26.5 & $ 15.10$ & 0.31 &        &

2046:       & &         &        & \\

2047:     SAO 32862  & 198084 & 27.1 & $ -2.60$ & 0.71 &        &

2048:       & &         &        & \\

2049:       HR 1099  & 22468 & 29.0 & $ 21.90$ & 0.88 & 17.9 &

2050: $7900 \pm 1500$ & 1.18 $\pm$ 0.47 & $<-1.12$ & $-1.28 \pm 0.10$ & \\

2051:  $\theta$ Peg  & 210418 & 29.6 & $ -4.20$ & 1.30 &        &

2052:       & &         &        & Eri\\

2053:     SAO 85045  & 157466 & 29.8 & $-19.02$ & 0.96 &        &

2054:       & &         &        & \\

2055:    $\eta$ Ari  & 13555 & 30.1 & $ 16.99$ & 0.50 &        &

2056:       & &         &        & Hyades\\

2057:  $\delta$ Cas  & 8538 & 30.5 & $ 13.05$ & 1.06 &        &

2058:       & &         &        & \\

2059:   $\alpha$ Gru & 209952 & 31.1 & $-10.93$ & 0.58 &        &

2060:       & &         &        & Vel\\

2061:   $\alpha$ Lac & 213558 & 31.4 & $  3.50$ & 1.11 &        &

2062:       & &         &        & Hyades\\

2063:        DK UMa  & 82210 & 32.4 & $  9.41$ & 0.06 & 17.9 &

2064:  6750$ \pm 240$ & 1.35$^{+0.18}_{-0.20}$ & $-1.10 \pm 0.07$ & $-0.87 \pm 0.09$ & \\

2065: $\epsilon$ Gru & 215789 & 39.7 & $ -7.30$ & 0.43 &        &

2066:       & &         &        & Vel\\

2067:     SAO 76593  & 27808 & 40.9 & $ 23.10$ & 0.17 &        &

2068:       & &         &        & Aur\\

2069:     SAO 93981  & 28568 & 41.2 & $ 23.90$ & 0.39 & 18.0 &

2070: $<$11700 & &         & $-0.97 \pm 0.18$ & Aur\\

2071:    SAO 111879  & 28736 & 43.2 & $ 21.60$ & 1.51 &        &

2072:       & &         &        & Aur\\

2073:       101 Tau  & 31845 & 43.3 & $ 22.40$ & 1.44 &        &

2074:       & &         &        & Aur \\

2075:     SAO 94033  & 29225 & 43.5 & $ 22.50$ & 1.10 &        &

2076:       & &         &        & Aur \\

2077:     SAO 93982  & 28608 & 43.6 & $ 23.20$ & 0.20 &        &

2078:       & &         &        & Aur\\

2079:     SAO 76683  & 29419 & 44.2 & $ 23.20$ & 0.25 &        &

2080:       & &         &        & Aur\\

2081:      V993 Tau  & 28205 & 45.8 & $ 23.30$ & 0.14 & 18.0 &

2082: $<$11200 & &         & $-0.94 \pm 0.29$ & Aur\\

2083:     SAO 93963  & 28406 & 46.3 & $ 22.10$ & 1.37 &        &

2084:       & &         &        & Aur\\

2085:     SAO 76609  & 28033 & 46.4 & $ 23.60$ & 0.28 & 18.2 &

2086: $<$12900 & &         & $-0.79 \pm 0.36$ & Aur\\

2087:      V471 Tau  & \nodata & 46.8 & $ 20.90$ & 0.52 & 18.2 &

2088: $<$11000 & &         &        & Aur, Hyades\\

2089:     SAO 93945  & 28237 & 47.2 & $ 22.40$ & 0.98 &        &

2090:       & &         &        & Aur\\

2091:     SAO 93831  & 26784 & 47.4 & $ 23.00$ & 0.05 &        &

2092:       & &         &        & Aur\\

2093:  $\gamma$ Aqr  & 212061 & 48.4 & $ -4.52$ & 0.76 &        &

2094:       & &         &        & \\

2095:     SAO 56530  & 21847 & 48.9 & $ 21.10$ & 0.39 &        &

2096:       & &         &        & \\

2097:     SAO 93885  & 27561 & 51.4 & $ 22.20$ & 1.11 &        &

2098:       & &         &        & Aur\\

2099:  $\kappa$ And  & 222439 & 52.0 & $  7.60$ & 1.06 &        &

2100:       & &         &        & Hyades\\

2101:  $\delta$ Cyg  & 186882 & 52.4 & $ -9.60$ & 1.47 &        &

2102:       & &         &        & G\\

2103:     SAO 93913  & 27848 & 53.4 & $ 22.40$ & 0.98 &        &

2104:       & &         &        & Aur\\

2105:       HR 1608  & 32008 & 54.7 & $ 21.60$ & 0.07 & 17.8 &

2106:       & &         &        & Blue\\

2107:        45 Aur  & 43905 & 57.0 & $ 18.47$ & 0.13 &        &

2108:       & &         &        & \\

2109:   $\zeta$ Peg  & 214923 & 64.1 & $ -2.20$ & 0.34 &        &

2110:       & &         &        & Eri\\

2111:   $\iota$ Cap  & 203387 & 66.1 & $-12.06$ & 0.06 & 17.9 &

2112: 12900$^{+3800}_{-3300}$ & 1.58$^{+0.56}_{-0.89}$ & $-0.85 \pm 0.36$ & $-0.22 \pm 0.43$ & \\

2113:    $\eta$ Aur  & 32630 & 67.2 & $ 23.00$ & 0.94 &        &

2114:       & &         &        & \\

2115:      G191-B2B  & \nodata & 68.8 & $ 19.19$ & 0.09 & 18.2 &

2116:  6200$^{+1400}_{-1300}$ & 1.78$^{+0.40}_{-0.51}$ & $-1.18 \pm 0.09$ & $-0.97 \pm 0.10$ & \\

2117:   $\iota$ Oph  & 152614 & 71.7 & $-21.50$ & 0.13 &        &

2118:       & &         &        & \\

2119:      Feige 24  & \nodata & 74.4 & $ 17.60$ & 0.17 & 18.1 &

2120:       & &         &        & Hyades\\

2121:  $\gamma$ Ori  & 35468 & 74.5 & $ 25.40$ & 1.88 &        &

2122:       & &         &        & Aur\\

2123: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2124: \enddata

2125: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2126: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2127: \end{deluxetable}  

2128: 

2129: %\clearpage

2130: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

2131: \tablewidth{0pt}

2132: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2133: \tablecaption{G Cloud Sight Line Properties\label{lism4_gtable}}

2134: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2135: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2136: \startdata

2137: $\alpha$ Cen B & 128621 &  1.3 & $-18.14$ & 0.02 & 17.6 &

2138:  5500$^{+330}_{-320}$ & 1.37$^{+0.34}_{-0.41}$ & $-0.53 \pm 0.14$ & $-0.38 \pm 0.14$ & \\

2139: $\alpha$ Cen A & 128620 &  1.3 & $-18.45$ & 0.33 & 17.6 &

2140:  5100$^{+1200}_{-1100}$ & 1.21$^{+0.33}_{-0.49}$ & $-0.61 \pm 0.06$ & $-0.42 \pm 0.11$ & \\

2141:        70 Oph  & 165341 &  5.1 & $-26.50$ & 0.07 & 17.8 &

2142:  2700$^{+3000}_{-2300}$ & 3.64$^{+0.42}_{-0.44}$ & $-0.38 \pm 0.09$ & $ 0.22 \pm 0.20$ & Mic\\

2143:      36 Oph A  & 155886 &  5.5 & $-28.40$ & 0.17 & 17.8 &

2144: $5870 \pm 560$ & 2.33$^{+0.46}_{-0.51}$ & $-0.61 \pm 0.26$ & $-0.29 \pm 0.18$ & \\

2145:  $\alpha$ Lyr  & 172167 &  7.8 & $-16.86$ & 1.33 &        &

2146:       &  &         &         & Mic\\

2147:        AB Dor  & 36705 & 14.9 & $  5.19$ & 0.15 &        &

2148:       &  &         &         & Blue, Dor\\

2149:        LQ Hya  & 82558 & 18.3 & $  6.50$ & 0.23 & 18.8 &

2150:  5700$^{+6300}_{-5700}$ & 2.52 $\pm$ 1.26 &         & $-1.38 \pm 0.31$ & LIC, Aur\\

2151:  $\alpha$ Hyi  & 12311 & 21.9 & $  4.90$ & 0.76 &        &

2152:       &  &         &         & Cet\\

2153:  $\delta$ Vel  & 74956 & 24.4 & $  1.30$ & 1.18 &        &

2154:       &  &         &         & \\

2155:   $\zeta$ Aql  & 177724 & 25.5 & $-21.30$ & 0.30 &        &

2156:       &  &         &         & Eri\\

2157:  $\sigma$ Cet  & 15798 & 25.8 & $ 21.85$ & 0.39 &        &

2158:       &  &         &         & \\

2159:  $\tau^3$ Eri  & 18978 & 26.4 & $ 20.90$ & 0.12 &        &

2160:       &  &         &         & \\

2161:       HR 4023  & 88955 & 31.5 & $ -1.70$ & 0.36 &        &

2162:       &  &         &         & \\

2163:     SAO 68491  & 184499 & 32.0 & $-14.28$ & 0.41 &        &

2164:       &  &         &         & LIC\\

2165:   $\beta$ Car  & 80007 & 34.1 & $ -4.32$ & 1.55 &        &

2166:       &  &         &         & \\

2167:     $\mu$ Vel  & 93497 & 35.3 & $ -4.38$ & 0.41 & 18.5 &

2168: $<$10500 &  &         &         & Cet\\

2169:   $\beta$ Lib  & 135742 & 49.1 & $-26.90$ & 0.61 &        &

2170:       &  &         &         & \\

2171:       $o$ Ser  & 160613 & 51.5 & $-29.00$ & 0.33 &        &

2172:       &  &         &         & Oph\\

2173:    SAO 159459  & 140283 & 57.3 & $-28.55$ & 0.02 &        &

2174:       &  &         &         & Gem\\

2175:     $\nu$ Ser  & 156928 & 59.3 & $-27.70$ & 1.49 &        &

2176:       &  &         &         & Mic\\

2177:     HD 141569  & 141569 & 99.0 & $-28.70$ & 0.22 &        &

2178:       &  &         &         & Gem\\

2179: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2180: \enddata

2181: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2182: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2183: \end{deluxetable}  

2184: 

2185: 

2186: %\clearpage

2187: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

2188: \tablewidth{0pt}

2189: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2190: \tablecaption{Blue Cloud Sight Line Properties\label{lism4_bluetable}}

2191: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2192: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2193: \startdata

2194: $\alpha$ CMa A & 48915 &  2.6 & $ 12.70$ & 0.04 & 17.2 &

2195:  3000$^{+2000}_{-1000}$ & 2.7 $\pm$ 0.3 & $-0.95^{+0.15}_{-0.21}$ & $-0.77^{+0.17}_{-0.22}$ & \\

2196: $\alpha$ CMa B & 48915B &  2.6 & $ 11.70$ & 0.63 &        &

2197:  3000$^{+2000}_{-1000}$ & 2.7 $\pm$ 0.3 &         &         & \\

2198:        EP Eri  & 17925 & 10.4 & $  9.00$ & 0.65 &        &

2199:       &  &         &         & LIC\\

2200:   $\zeta$ Dor  & 33262 & 11.7 & $  8.41$ & 0.25 & 17.8 &

2201:  7700$^{+2300}_{-2100}$ & 2.34$^{+0.38}_{-0.48}$ & $-0.52 \pm 0.30$ & $-0.05 \pm 0.27$ & G \\

2202:       HR 2225  & 43162 & 16.7 & $ 14.00$ & 0.44 & 17.9 &

2203: $<$10400 &  &         &         & LIC\\

2204:   $\beta$ Pic  & 39060 & 19.3 & $ 10.12$ & 0.81 &        &

2205:       &  &         &         & \\

2206:       HR 2882  & 59967 & 21.8 & $  8.40$ & 0.47 & 18.5 &

2207: $<$15100 &  &         &         & \\

2208:  $\sigma$ Cet  & 15798 & 25.8 & $  9.74$ & 0.38 &        &

2209:       &  &         &         & \\

2210:   $\beta$ Car  & 80007 & 34.1 & $  3.57$ & 0.24 &        &

2211:       &  &         &         & Vel, Cet\\

2212:   $\alpha$ Car & 45348 & 95.9 & $  8.19$ & 0.58 &        &

2213:       &  &         &         & Dor\\

2214: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2215: \enddata

2216: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2217: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2218: \end{deluxetable}  

2219: 

2220: 

2221: %\clearpage

2222: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

2223: \tablewidth{0pt}

2224: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2225: \tablecaption{Aql Cloud Sight Line Properties

2226: %lg2

2227: \label{lism4_aqltable}}

2228: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2229: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2230: \startdata

2231:      61 Cyg A  & 201091 &  3.5 & $ -3.00$ & 1.28 & 17.8 &

2232: $6850 \pm 880$ & 2.08 $\pm$ 0.64 &         & $-0.95 \pm 0.22$ & LIC\\

2233:  $\alpha$ Aql  & 187642 &  5.1 & $-20.90$ & 0.14 & 17.9 &

2234: $12600 \pm 2400$ & 0.63$^{+0.90}_{-0.63}$ & $-0.96 \pm 0.54$ & $-0.69 \pm 0.55$ & G, Eri\\

2235:        70 Oph  & 165341 &  5.1 & $-43.34$ & 0.92 & 17.1 &

2236: $3300 \pm 2100$ & 2.31 $\pm$ 0.37 &         & $-0.57 \pm 0.15$ & \\

2237:       HR 6748  & 165185 & 17.4 & $-29.20$ & 0.36 & 18.1 &

2238: $<$15700 &  &         &         & G \\

2239:   $\zeta$ Aql  & 177724 & 25.5 & $-30.20$ & 0.79 &        &

2240:       &  &         &         & Oph\\

2241:  $\lambda$ Aql & 177756 & 38.4 & $-30.70$ & 1.19 &        &

2242:       &  &         &         & Mic\\

2243:        BO Mic  & 197890 & 44.4 & $  0.00$ & 0.31 &        &

2244:       &  &         &         & \\

2245:  $\delta$ Cyg  & 186882 & 52.4 & $-18.80$ & 0.71 &        &

2246:       &  &         &         & Mic\\

2247:   $\alpha$ Del & 196867 & 73.8 & $-10.40$ & 1.01 &        &

2248:       &  &         &         & \\

2249: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2250: \enddata

2251: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2252: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2253: \end{deluxetable}  

2254: 

2255: 

2256: %\clearpage

2257: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

2258: \tablewidth{0pt}

2259: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2260: \tablecaption{Eri Cloud Sight Line Properties 

2261: \label{lism4_eritable}}

2262: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2263: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2264: \startdata

2265:      61 Cyg A  & 201091 &  3.5 & $ -9.00$ & 0.27 & 17.8 &

2266: $6850 \pm 880$ & 2.08 $\pm$ 0.64 &         & $-0.35 \pm 0.22$ & \\

2267:  $\alpha$ Aql  & 187642 &  5.1 & $-17.10$ & 1.04 & 17.9 &

2268: 12300$^{+2000}_{-2200}$ & 0.0$^{+1.2}_{-0.0}$ & $-0.86 \pm 0.27$ & $-0.67 \pm 0.28$ & G \\

2269:  $\lambda$ Aql & 177756 & 38.4 & $-21.90$ & 0.35 &        &

2270:       &  &         &         & G \\

2271:   $\alpha$ Peg & 218045 & 42.8 & $ -0.90$ & 0.12 &        &

2272:       &  &         &         & LIC\\

2273:      V376 Peg  & 209458 & 47.1 & $ -6.60$ & 0.00 & 18.4 &

2274: $<$15900 &  &         &         & \\

2275: $\upsilon$ Peg & 220657 & 53.1 & $  1.73$ & 0.13 & 17.9 &

2276:  1700$^{+1100}_{-900}$ & 3.93 $\pm$ 0.22 & $-0.35 \pm 0.08$ & $ 0.01 \pm 0.12$ & LIC\\

2277:   $\alpha$ Del & 196867 & 73.8 & $-14.00$ & 0.14 &        &

2278:       &  &         &         & \\

2279:  $\theta$ Aql  & 191692 & 88.0 & $-17.70$ & 0.15 &        &

2280:       &  &         &         & Aql\\

2281: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2282: \enddata

2283: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2284: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2285: \end{deluxetable}  

2286: 

2287: 

2288: %\clearpage

2289: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

2290: \tablewidth{0pt}

2291: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2292: \tablecaption{Aur Cloud Sight Line Properties

2293: %lg8_2

2294: \label{tab:aurmem}}

2295: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2296: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2297: \startdata

2298:  $\alpha$ CMi  & 61421 &  3.5 & $ 23.00$ & 1.03 & 17.6 &

2299:  6710$^{+660}_{-630}$ & 1.21$^{+0.35}_{-0.45}$ & $-1.13 \pm 0.07$ & $-0.79 \pm 0.10$ & \\

2300:        LQ Hya  & 82558 & 18.3 & $ 14.00$ & 0.19 &        &

2301:       &  &         &         & LIC, G\\

2302:   $\alpha$ Tau & 29139 & 20.0 & $ 20.62$ & 1.29 & 17.8 &

2303:       &  &         &         & LIC\\

2304:     SAO 93801  & 26345 & 43.1 & $ 21.10$ & 0.51 &        &

2305:       &  &         &         & LIC\\

2306:     SAO 93973  & 28483 & 50.2 & $ 20.80$ & 0.31 &        &

2307:       &  &         &         & LIC\\

2308:  $\gamma$ Crv  & 106625 & 50.6 & $ -2.00$ & 0.32 &        &

2309:       &  &         &         & \\

2310:        45 Aur  & 43905 & 57.0 & $ 11.87$ & 0.60 &        &

2311:       &  &         &         & \\

2312:    $\eta$ Aur  & 32630 & 67.2 & $ 17.44$ & 0.87 &        &

2313:       &  &         &         & \\

2314:       HR 2324  & 45320 & 70.1 & $ 26.00$ & 1.18 &        &

2315:       &  &         &         & \\

2316: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2317: \enddata

2318: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2319: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2320: \end{deluxetable}  

2321: 

2322: 

2323: %\clearpage

2324: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccl}

2325: \tablewidth{0pt}

2326: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2327: \tablecaption{Hyades Cloud Sight Line Properties

2328: \label{lism4_hyadestable}}

2329: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2330: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2331: \startdata

2332:        EV Lac  & \nodata &  5.0 & $  7.30$ & 0.12 & 18.0 &

2333: $<$8300 &  &         &         & LIC, Eri\\

2334: $\kappa^1$ Cet & 20630 &  9.2 & $ 13.35$ & 1.11 & 17.5 &

2335:  3600$^{+2900}_{-2200}$ & 2.17$^{+0.34}_{-0.52}$ & $-1.29 \pm 0.25$ & $-0.79 \pm 0.19$ & \\

2336:   $\alpha$ Tri & 11443 & 19.7 & $ 13.65$ & 0.16 & 17.8 &

2337:  8900$^{+3900}_{-3400}$ & 1.3$^{+1.7}_{-1.3}$ & $-0.97 \pm 0.23$ & $-0.58 \pm 0.15$ & LIC \\

2338:       HR 1099  & 22468 & 29.0 & $ 14.80$ & 0.63 & 17.6 &

2339:  8800$^{+800}_{-1100}$ & 0.0$^{+0.9}_{-0.0}$ & $<-0.82$ & $-1.36 \pm 0.0.09$ & \\

2340:     SAO 93801  & 26345 & 43.1 & $ 13.60$ & 0.08 &        &

2341:       &  &         &         & \\

2342:    SAO 111879  & 28736 & 43.2 & $ 13.40$ & 0.19 &        &

2343:       &  &         &         & \\

2344:     SAO 76683  & 29419 & 44.2 & $ 12.30$ & 0.54 &        &

2345:       &  &         &         & \\

2346:      V993 Tau  & 28205 & 45.8 & $ 14.80$ & 0.84 &        &

2347:       &  &         &         & \\

2348:     SAO 93831  & 26784 & 47.4 & $ 15.50$ & 1.62 &        &

2349:       &  &         &         & \\

2350:     SAO 93885  & 27561 & 51.4 & $ 14.40$ & 0.86 &        &

2351:       &  &         &         & \\

2352: $\upsilon$ Peg & 220657 & 53.1 & $  8.80$ & 0.51 & 17.4 &

2353:  1000$^{+1900}_{-1000}$ & 3.4$^{+0.61}_{-0.63}$6 & $-0.87 \pm 0.45$ & $-1.07 \pm 0.30$ & \\

2354:        45 Aur  & 43905 & 57.0 & $  8.14$ & 0.84 &        &

2355:       &  &         &         & \\

2356:    $\eta$ Aur  & 32630 & 67.2 & $ 10.70$ & 0.02 &        &

2357:       &  &         &         & \\

2358:      G191-B2B  & \nodata & 68.8 & $  8.61$ & 0.74 & 17.4 &

2359:  4400$^{+2800}_{-2400}$ & 3.27$^{+0.37}_{-0.39}$ & $ 0.05\pm 0.11$ & $ 0.87 \pm 0.54$ & \\

2360: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2361: \enddata

2362: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2363: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2364: \end{deluxetable}  

2365: 

2366: 

2367: %\clearpage

2368: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

2369: \tablewidth{0pt}

2370: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2371: \tablecaption{Mic Cloud Sight Line Properties\label{lism4_mictable}}

2372: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2373: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2374: \startdata

2375:  $\alpha$ Aql  & 187642 &  5.1 & $-25.02$ & 0.22 & 17.5 &

2376: 12500$^{+2700}_{-2400}$ & 1.4$^{+0.7}_{-1.4}$ & $-0.61 \pm 0.23$ & $-0.38 \pm 0.24$ & \\

2377:   $\alpha$ PsA & 216956 &  7.7 & $-10.64$ & 0.07 &        &

2378:       &  &         &         & \\

2379:   $\alpha$ Lyr & 172167 &  7.8 & $-19.40$ & 0.19 &        &

2380:       &  &         &         & \\

2381:        AU Mic  & 197481 &  9.9 & $-21.45$ & 0.05 & 18.2 &

2382: $8700 \pm 1200$ & 4.30 $\pm$ 0.93 &         & $-0.55 \pm 0.19$ & \\

2383:   $\alpha$ Oph & 159561 & 14.3 & $-26.23$ & 0.05 &        &

2384:       &  &         &         & G \\

2385:        99 Her  & 165908 & 15.7 & $-22.90$ & 0.50 &        &

2386:       &  &         &         & \\

2387:   $\alpha$ CrB & 139006 & 22.9 & $-17.40$ & 0.21 &        &

2388:       &  &         &         & Oph, Leo\\

2389:   $\beta$ Cet  & 4128 & 29.4 & $  1.63$ & 0.15 & 16.9 &

2390: $12400 \pm 2800$ & 2.29 $\pm$ 0.44 &         & $ 0.23 \pm 0.09$ & \\

2391:     SAO 68491  & 184499 & 32.0 & $-19.73$ & 0.74 &        &

2392:       &  &         &         & \\

2393:  $\lambda$ Aql & 177756 & 38.4 & $-26.50$ & 1.38 &        &

2394:       &  &         &         & G \\

2395:   $\beta$ Ser  & 141003 & 46.9 & $-20.70$ & 0.47 &        &

2396:       &  &         &         & LIC, Oph, Leo\\

2397:  $\lambda$ Oph & 148857 & 50.9 & $-24.80$ & 0.07 &        &

2398:       &  &         &         & LIC, Oph\\

2399:  $\delta$ Cyg  & 186882 & 52.4 & $-16.30$ & 0.27 &        &

2400:       &  &         &         & \\

2401:   $\iota$ Cap  & 203387 & 66.1 & $-20.48$ & 0.41 & 18.1 &

2402: 11700$^{+4100}_{-3600}$ & 3.82$^{+0.37}_{-0.44}$ & $-1.22 \pm 0.23$ & $-0.47 \pm 0.21$ & \\

2403:  $\theta$ CrB  & 138749 & 95.3 & $-15.70$ & 0.29 &        &

2404:       &  &         &         & Oph\\

2405: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2406: \enddata

2407: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2408: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2409: \end{deluxetable}  

2410: 

2411: 

2412: %\clearpage

2413: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

2414: \tablewidth{0pt}

2415: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2416: \tablecaption{Oph Cloud Sight Line Properties

2417: %lg4_2

2418: \label{lism4_ophtable}}

2419: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2420: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2421: \startdata

2422:        70 Oph  & 165341 &  5.1 & $-32.53$ & 1.30 & 17.5 &

2423:  1700$^{+2100}_{-1700}$ & 3.3 $\pm$ 1.1 &         & $-0.84 \pm 0.34$ & \\

2424:  $\gamma$ Ser  & 142806 & 11.1 & $-22.12$ & 0.28 &        &

2425:       &  &         &         & Mic\\

2426:   $\alpha$ Oph & 159561 & 14.3 & $-28.40$ & 1.17 &        &

2427:       &  &         &         & G, Mic\\

2428:        72 Her  & 157214 & 14.4 & $-25.95$ & 0.32 &        &

2429:       &  &         &         & NGP\\

2430:  $\gamma$ Oph  & 161868 & 29.1 & $-29.90$ & 0.62 &        &

2431:       &  &         &         & G, Mic\\

2432:     SAO 68491  & 184499 & 32.0 & $-27.85$ & 0.02 &        &

2433:       &  &         &         & \\

2434: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2435: \enddata

2436: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2437: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2438: \end{deluxetable}  

2439: 

2440: 

2441: %\clearpage

2442: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

2443: \tablewidth{0pt}

2444: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2445: \tablecaption{Gem Cloud Sight Line Properties

2446: \label{lism4_gemtable}}

2447: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2448: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2449: \startdata

2450:   $\xi$ Boo A  & 131156 &  6.7 & $-17.69$ & 0.33 & 17.9 &

2451: $5310 \pm 830$ & 1.68 $\pm$ 0.23 &         & $-0.92 \pm 0.10$ & Mic, NGP\\

2452:   $\beta$ Gem  & 62509 & 10.3 & $ 31.84$ & 0.00 & 17.8 &

2453:  6100$^{+3100}_{-2600}$ & 1.93$^{+0.79}_{-0.59}$ & $-1.29 \pm 0.12$ & $-1.19 \pm 0.14$ & \\

2454:   $\alpha$ Boo & 124897 & 11.3 & $-13.89$ & 0.50 &        &

2455:       &  &         &         & NGP\\

2456:  $\delta$ Crv  & 108767 & 26.9 & $ -0.50$ & 0.76 &        &

2457:       &  &         &         & Aur\\

2458:       HR 4803  & 109799 & 34.6 & $ -0.37$ & 1.02 &        &

2459:       &  &         &         & Aur\\

2460:  $\sigma$ Gem  & 62044 & 37.5 & $ 32.26$ & 0.55 & 17.7 &

2461:  7200$^{+1000}_{-1200}$ & 0.0$^{+1.1}_{-0.0}$ &         & $-1.18 \pm 0.14$ & \\

2462:   $\beta$ Ser  & 141003 & 46.9 & $-23.30$ & 1.61 &        &

2463:       &  &         &         & Oph, NGP\\

2464:   $\beta$ Lib  & 135742 & 49.1 & $-23.60$ & 0.17 &        &

2465:       &  &         &         & \\

2466:  $\gamma$ Crv  & 106625 & 50.6 & $  1.60$ & 0.73 &        &

2467:       &  &         &         & \\

2468:     c$^2$ Cen  & 129685 & 63.5 & $-16.90$ & 0.36 &        &

2469:       &  &         &         & \\

2470: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2471: \enddata

2472: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2473: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2474: \end{deluxetable}  

2475: 

2476: 

2477: %\clearpage

2478: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

2479: \tablewidth{0pt}

2480: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2481: \tablecaption{NGP Cloud Sight Line Properties

2482: \label{lism4_ngptable}}

2483: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2484: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2485: \startdata

2486:        61 Vir  & 115617 &  8.5 & $-16.50$ & 0.01 & 17.9 &

2487: $<$8500 &  &         &         & Leo\\

2488:   $\alpha$ Oph & 159561 & 14.3 & $-32.74$ & 0.84 &        &

2489:       &  &         &         & \\

2490:    $\chi$ Her  & 142373 & 15.9 & $-12.90$ & 0.76 & 18.2 &

2491: $<$10200 &  &         &         & Mic\\

2492:   $\iota$ Cen  & 115892 & 18.0 & $-18.20$ & 0.31 &        &

2493:       &  &         &         & G\\

2494:     SAO 28753  & 116956 & 21.9 & $  3.20$ & 0.57 & 18.2 &

2495: $<$12600 &  &         &         & LIC\\

2496:   $\iota$ Leo  & 99028 & 24.2 & $  4.99$ & 0.65 &        &

2497:       &  &         &         & Leo\\

2498:    $\eta$ UMa  & 120315 & 30.9 & $ -3.02$ & 0.11 & 17.9 &

2499:  8900$^{+2500}_{-2300}$ & 1.34$^{+0.24}_{-0.31}$ & $-0.93 \pm 0.06$ & $-0.78 \pm 0.10$ & \\

2500:   $\iota$ Dra  & 137759 & 31.3 & $ -6.81$ & 1.74 &        &

2501:       &  &         &         & LIC\\

2502:         HZ 43  & \nodata & 32.0 & $ -6.52$ & 0.40 & 18.0 &

2503:  7500$^{+2100}_{-2000}$ & 1.7$^{+0.8}_{-1.7}$ & $-1.42 \pm 0.11$ & $-1.08 \pm 0.17$ & \\

2504: $\alpha^2$ CVn & 112413 & 33.8 & $ -1.90$ & 0.77 &        &

2505:       &  &         &         & LIC\\

2506:       HR 4803  & 109799 & 34.6 & $-11.41$ & 0.55 &        &

2507:       &  &         &         & \\

2508:     c$^2$ Cen  & 129685 & 63.5 & $-26.30$ & 0.33 &        &

2509:       &  &         &         & G\\

2510:        GD 153  & \nodata & 70.5 & $ -5.04$ & 0.44 & 17.9 &

2511:  7000$^{+2900}_{-2800}$ & 1.2$^{+1.1}_{-1.2}$ & $-1.18 \pm 0.13$ &         & \\

2512:        31 Com  & 111812 & 94.2 & $ -3.37$ & 0.03 & 18.0 &

2513:  8200$^{+1000}_{-1400}$ & 0.0$^{+1.0}_{-0.0}$ & $-0.85 \pm 0.15$ & $-0.98 \pm 0.14$ & \\

2514:  $\theta$ CrB  & 138749 & 95.3 & $-19.90$ & 0.72 &        &

2515:       &  &         &         & Oph, Gem\\

2516: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2517: \enddata

2518: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2519: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2520: \end{deluxetable}  

2521: 

2522: 

2523: %\clearpage

2524: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

2525: \tablewidth{0pt}

2526: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2527: \tablecaption{Leo Cloud Sight Line Properties

2528: \label{lism4_leotable}}

2529: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2530: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2531: \startdata

2532:   $\beta$ Leo  & 102647 & 11.1 & $  0.51$ & 0.05 &        &

2533:       &  &         &         & NGP\\

2534:       HR 4657  & 106516 & 22.6 & $ -3.40$ & 0.42 & 18.6 &

2535: $<$27500 &  &         &         & Aur, Gem, NGP\\

2536:   $\alpha$ Leo & 87901 & 23.8 & $ 10.50$ & 0.76 &        &

2537:       &  &         &         & LIC\\

2538:   $\iota$ Leo  & 99028 & 24.2 & $  1.97$ & 0.50 &        &

2539:       &  &         &         & \\

2540:       HR 4803  & 109799 & 34.6 & $ -7.52$ & 0.40 &        &

2541:       &  &         &         & \\

2542:   $\beta$ Ser  & 141003 & 46.9 & $-16.70$ & 1.05 &        &

2543:       &  &         &         & LIC\\

2544:   $\alpha$ Vir & 116658 & 80.4 & $-11.99$ & 0.80 &        &

2545:       &  &         &         & \\

2546: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2547: \enddata

2548: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2549: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2550: \end{deluxetable}  

2551: 

2552: 

2553: %\clearpage

2554: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

2555: \tablewidth{0pt}

2556: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2557: \tablecaption{Dor Cloud Sight Line Properties

2558: \label{lism4_dortable}}

2559: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2560: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2561: \startdata

2562:   $\zeta$ Dor  & 33262 & 11.7 & $ 13.90$ & 0.35 & 18.1 &

2563:  7000$^{+3500}_{-3000}$ & 5.47$^{+0.39}_{-0.41}$ & $-0.80 \pm 0.30$ & $-0.65 \pm 0.31$ & \\

2564:  $\tau^6$ Eri  & 23754 & 17.9 & $ 41.40$ & 0.12 &        &

2565:       &  &         &         & \\

2566: $\epsilon$ Gru & 215789 & 39.7 & $ 12.20$ & 0.66 &        &

2567:       &  &         &         & \\

2568:   $\alpha$ Eri & 10144 & 44.1 & $ 21.20$ & 0.24 &        &

2569:       &  &         &         & \\

2570: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2571: \enddata

2572: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2573: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2574: \end{deluxetable}  

2575: 

2576: 

2577: %\clearpage

2578: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

2579: \tablewidth{0pt}

2580: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2581: \tablecaption{Vel Cloud Sight Line Properties

2582: %lg7

2583: \label{lism4_veltable}}

2584: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2585: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2586: \startdata

2587:        AB Dor  & 36705 & 14.9 & $ 14.22$ & 0.11 &        &

2588:       &  &         &         & Cet\\

2589:    SAO 254993  & 254993 & 20.5 & $-13.10$ & 1.24 & 18.8 &

2590: $<$23000 &  &         &         & LIC, G\\

2591:   $\alpha$ Hyi & 12311 & 21.9 & $  9.80$ & 0.31 &        &

2592:       &  &         &         & \\

2593:  $\delta$ Vel  & 74956 & 24.4 & $ 11.80$ & 0.18 &        &

2594:       &  &         &         & \\

2595:   $\alpha$ Eri & 10144 & 44.1 & $ 11.00$ & 0.45 &        &

2596:       &  &         &         & \\

2597:        BO Mic  & 197890 & 44.4 & $-24.20$ & 0.28 & 18.3 &

2598: $10600 \pm 2700$ & 3.48 $\pm$ 1.87 &         & $-0.03 \pm 0.72$ & Mic\\

2599:   $\alpha$ Pav & 193924 & 56.2 & $-19.60$ & 0.63 &       &

2600:       &  &         &         & \\

2601: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2602: \enddata

2603: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2604: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2605: \end{deluxetable}  

2606: 

2607: 

2608: %\clearpage

2609: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccl}

2610: \tablewidth{0pt}

2611: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2612: \tablecaption{Cet Cloud Sight Line Properties

2613: %lg6_2

2614: \label{tab:cetmem}}

2615: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\sigma$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Other\\ 

2616: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{b}\\}

2617: \startdata

2618:  $\sigma$ Boo  & 128167 & 15.5 & $-12.90$ & 1.10 &        &

2619:       &  &         &         & \\

2620:  $\delta$ Vel  & 74956 & 24.4 & $ 15.60$ & 0.79 &        &

2621:       &  &         &         & \\

2622:   $\beta$ Cet  & 4128 & 29.4 & $  9.14$ & 0.53 & 18.5 &

2623: $6300 \pm 2900$ & 1.31 $\pm$ 0.76 &         & $ 0.21 \pm 0.33$ & LIC\\

2624:       HR 4023  & 88955 & 31.5 & $ 10.50$ & 0.48 &        &

2625:       &  &         &         & \\

2626:   $\alpha$ Eri & 10144 & 44.1 & $  7.60$ & 1.80 &        &

2627:       &  &         &         & G, Vel\\

2628: % for overlap stars see lism4_4.tex

2629: \enddata

2630: \tablenotetext{a}{$\sigma = (|v_0 - v_{\star}|) / \sigma_v$, where we have imposed a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 1 \kms for all high resolution data, and a minimum $\sigma_v$ of 3 \kms for all medium resolution data.}

2631: \tablenotetext{b}{Other dynamical clouds for which the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of the predicted value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud.  These are less likely, but possible dynamical assignments for these sight lines.}

2632: \end{deluxetable}  

2633: 

2634: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}

2635: \tablewidth{0pt}

2636: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

2637: \tablecaption{LISM Cloud Heliocentric Velocity Vectors\label{tab:vecs}}

2638: \tablehead{Cloud & Number of & $V_0$ & $l_0$ & $b_0$ & $\chi_{\nu}^2$\\ 

2639: Name & Sight Lines & (\kms) & ($^{\circ}$) & ($^{\circ}$) & }

2640: \startdata

2641: LIC    & 79 & 23.84 $\pm$ 0.90 & 187.0 $\pm$ 3.4 & --13.5 $\pm$ 3.3 & 2.2\\

2642: G      & 21 & 29.6 $\pm$ 1.1 & 184.5 $\pm$ 1.9 & --20.6 $\pm$ 3.6 & 1.3\\

2643: Blue   & 10 & 13.89 $\pm$ 0.89 & 205.5 $\pm$ 4.3 & --21.7 $\pm$ 8.3 & 2.4\\

2644: Aql    & ~9 & 58.6 $\pm$ 1.3 & 187.0 $\pm$ 1.5 & --50.8 $\pm$ 1.0 & 2.6\\

2645: Eri    & ~8 & 24.1 $\pm$ 1.2 & 196.7 $\pm$ 2.1 & --17.7 $\pm$ 2.6 & 0.3\\

2646: Aur    & ~9 & 25.22 $\pm$ 0.81 & 212.0 $\pm$ 2.4 & --16.4 $\pm$ 3.6 & 2.1\\

2647: Hyades & 14 & 14.69 $\pm$ 0.81 & 164.2 $\pm$ 9.4 & --42.8 $\pm$ 6.1 & 1.3\\

2648: Mic    & 15 & 28.45 $\pm$ 0.95 & 203.0 $\pm$ 3.4 & --03.3 $\pm$ 2.3 & 0.5\\

2649: Oph    & ~6 & 32.25 $\pm$ 0.49 & 217.7 $\pm$ 3.1 &  +00.8 $\pm$ 1.8 & 3.9\\

2650: Gem    & 10 & 36.3 $\pm$ 1.1 & 207.2 $\pm$ 1.6 & --01.2 $\pm$ 1.3 & 1.7\\

2651: NGP    & 15 & 37.0 $\pm$ 1.4 & 189.8 $\pm$ 1.7 & --05.4 $\pm$ 1.1 & 3.8\\

2652: Leo    & ~7 & 23.5 $\pm$ 1.6 & 191.3 $\pm$ 2.8 & --08.9 $\pm$ 1.8 & 1.5\\

2653: Dor    & ~4 & 52.94 $\pm$ 0.88 & 157.3 $\pm$ 1.5 & --47.93 $\pm$ 0.63 & 0.8\\

2654: Vel    & ~7 & 45.2 $\pm$ 1.8 & 195.4 $\pm$ 1.1 & --19.1 $\pm$ 1.0 & 0.8\\

2655: Cet    & ~5 & 60.0 $\pm$ 2.0 & 197.11 $\pm$ 0.56 & --08.72 $\pm$ 0.50 & 8.9\\

2656: \tableline

2657: LIC\tablenotemark{a} &

2658:          ~9 & 25.7 $\pm$ 0.5 & 186.1             & --16.4          & \nodata\\

2659: LIC\tablenotemark{b} &

2660:          16 & 26 $\pm$ 1     & 186 $\pm$ 3       & --16 $\pm$ 3    & \nodata\\

2661: LIC\tablenotemark{c} &

2662:          63 & 24.20 $\pm$ 1.05 & 187.0 $\pm$ 3.1 & --13.5 $\pm$ 3.0 & 2.1\\

2663: G\tablenotemark{a}   &

2664:    \nodata  & 29.4           & 185.5             & --20.5          & \nodata\\

2665: Helio\tablenotemark{d} &

2666:    \nodata  & 26.24 $\pm$ 0.45 & 183.4 $\pm$ 0.4 & --15.9 $\pm$ 0.4 &\nodata\\

2667: (LIC+G)/2\tablenotemark{e} &

2668:    \nodata  & 26.74 $\pm$ 0.71 & 185.7 $\pm$ 3.4   & --16.95 $\pm$ 3.6 &\nodata\\

2669: \enddata

2670: \tablenotetext{a}{\citet{lallement92}}

2671: \tablenotetext{b}{\citet{lallement95}}

2672: \tablenotetext{c}{{LIC} flow vector deleting the 16 lines of sight near the

2673: decelerated leading edge of the LIC in the direction of the Hyades Cloud.}

2674: \tablenotetext{d}{Flow vector for interstellar helium gas in the heliosphere.

2675: Temperature is 6303 $\pm$ 390~K: \citet{mobius04}.  See temperatures for individual dynamical clouds in Table~\ref{tab:sumprop}.}

2676: \tablenotetext{e}{Average of the LIC and G vectors. Average temperature of 

2677: the LIC and G Clouds is 6500 $\pm$ 680~K.  The {\it in situ} ``Helio'' measurement is closer to the average LIC and G temperature, than either cloud individually, see Table~\ref{tab:sumprop}.}

2678: \end{deluxetable}  

2679: 

2680: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccl}

2681: \tablewidth{0pt}

2682: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2683: \tablecaption{Unassigned Sight Line Properties

2684: \label{tab:unass}}

2685: \tablehead{Star & HD & $d$ & $v$ & $\log N({\rm H~I})$ & $T$ & $\xi$ & $D($Fe$)$ & $D($Mg$)$ & Possible\\ 

2686: Name & \# & (pc) & (\kms) & (cm$^{-2}$) & (K) & (\kms) & & & Clouds\tablenotemark{a}\\}

2687: \startdata

2688:              AD Leo &           &    4.7 &  13.13 & 18.5 & $<$12300 &      &       &        & LIC, Leo\\

2689:        $\eta$ Cas A &       4614&    6.0 &   5.80 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2690:      $\kappa^1$ Cet &      20630&    9.2 &   7.36 & 17.4 &  5800 $\pm$ 2700 & 1.48 $\pm$ 0.92 &       & $-1.51 \pm 0.23$  & \\

2691:         $\beta$ Leo &     102647&   11.1 &  11.80 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2692:              AB Dor &      36705&   14.9 &  19.38 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2693:        $\tau^6$ Eri &      23754&   17.9 &  27.93 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2694:        $\tau^6$ Eri &      23754&   17.9 &   8.82 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2695:              PW And &       1405&   21.9 &   2.00 &       &         &      &       &        & LIC, Eri\\

2696:          SAO 158720 &     128987&   23.6 & --22.00 & 18.1 & $<$12400 &      &       &        & G, Gem, NGP, Leo\\

2697:        $\delta$ Her &     156164&   24.1 & --19.50 &       &         &      &       &        & LIC\\

2698:           SAO 32862 &     198084&   27.1 & --12.88 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2699:             HR 1099 &      22468&   29.0 &   8.20 & 17.2 &  7100 $\pm$ 1400 & 2.30 $\pm$ 0.25 &       & $-1.21 \pm 0.12$  & \\

2700:        $\gamma$ Oph &     161868&   29.1 & --33.00 &       &         &      &       &        & Oph, NGP\\

2701:        $\alpha$ And &        358&   29.8 &  13.00 &       &         &      &       &        & Hyades\\

2702:          $\eta$ UMa &     120315&   30.9 &   2.60 & 16.6 &     0$^{+4400}_{-0}$ & 5.6$^{+0.9}_{-1.1}$ &       & $-0.78 \pm 0.15$  & NGP\\

2703:        $\alpha$ Gru &     209952&   31.1 &  --6.40 &       &         &      &       &        & LIC, Vel \\

2704:        $\alpha$ Gru &     209952&   31.1 & --21.40 &       &         &      &       &        & LIC, Vel\\

2705:        $\sigma$ Gem &      62044&   37.5 &  21.77 & 17.9 &  8600 $\pm$ 1600 & 2.46 $\pm$ 0.45 &       & $-0.92 \pm 0.14$  & LIC\\

2706:             HR 2298 &      44769&   39.4 &   7.00 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2707:      $\epsilon$ Gru &     215789&   39.7 &   6.80 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2708:      $\epsilon$ Gru &     215789&   39.7 &  --1.70 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2709:      $\epsilon$ Gru &     215789&   39.7 & --12.30 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2710:      $\epsilon$ Gru &     215789&   39.7 & --22.40 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2711:           SAO 93981 &      28568&   41.2 &  16.50 &       &         &      &       &        & Hyades\\

2712:          SAO 111879 &      28736&   43.2 &  --4.30 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2713:           SAO 93982 &      28608&   43.6 &  15.80 &       &         &      &       &        & Hyades\\

2714:        $\alpha$ Eri &      10144&   44.1 &  18.90 &       &         &      &       &        & Dor\\

2715:           SAO 93945 &      28237&   47.2 &  15.60 &       &         &      &       &        & Hyades\\

2716:         $\beta$ Lib &     135742&   49.1 & --33.70 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2717:           SAO 94162 &      30738&   51.8 &  20.30 &       &         &      &       &        & Aur\\

2718:        $\kappa$ And &     222439&   52.0 &   0.80 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2719:      $\upsilon$ Peg &     220657&   53.1 &  --7.48 & 17.4 &  3600$^{+4400}_{-3000}$ & 1.7$^{+0.7}_{-1.5}$ & $-0.83 \pm 0.2$ & $-0.54 \pm 0.21$  & \\

2720:           SAO 93913 &      27848&   53.4 &  16.40 &       &         &      &       &        & Aur, Hyades\\

2721:             HR 1608 &      32008&   54.7 &   6.10 & 17.7 & $<$11500 &      &       &        & Blue, Hyades\\

2722:        $\alpha$ Pav &     193924&   56.2 & --18.60 &       &         &      &       &        & Vel\\

2723:          $\eta$ Aqr &     213998&   56.3 &  --2.10 &       &         &      &       &        & LIC\\

2724:          SAO 159459 &     140283&   57.3 & --22.48 &       &         &      &       &        & Gem, Leo\\

2725:         $\iota$ Cap &     203387&   66.1 &  --2.22 & 18.4 &  5500$^{+10600}_{-5500}$ & 3.7$^{+0.7}_{-1.1}$ & $-0.63 \pm 0.37$ & $-0.28 \pm 0.38$  & \\

2726:          $\eta$ Aur &      32630&   67.2 &   6.80 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2727:         $\iota$ Oph &     152614&   71.7 & --11.00 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2728:         $\iota$ Oph &     152614&   71.7 & --30.80 &       &         &      &       &        & NGP\\

2729:            Feige 24 &           &   74.4 &   3.10 & 18.2 &         &      &       &        & \\

2730:        $\gamma$ Ori &      35468&   74.5 &  16.00 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2731:        $\gamma$ Ori &      35468&   74.5 &  20.20 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2732:        $\gamma$ Ori &      35468&   74.5 &  27.80 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2733:        $\alpha$ Vir &     116658&   80.4 &  --5.40 &       &         &      &       &        & Gem\\

2734:        $\alpha$ Vir &     116658&   80.4 &  --3.68 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2735:        $\theta$ Aql &     191692&   88.0 & --22.60 &       &         &      &       &        & Mic\\

2736:          $\tau$ Her &     147394&   96.4 & --33.50 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2737:          $\tau$ Her &     147394&   96.4 & --38.00 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2738:           HD 141569 &     141569&   99.0 & --13.70 &       &         &      &       &        & \\

2739: \enddata

2740: \tablenotetext{a}{Although they do not fit the criteria for membership in any of the dynamical clouds, we list here possible membership where the observed velocity is within 3$\sigma$ of a predicted cloud value and the sight line is closer than 10$^{\circ}$ to the cloud. }

2741: \end{deluxetable}  

2742: 

2743: \clearpage

2744: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccccccc}

2745: \rotate

2746: \tablewidth{0pt}

2747: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

2748: \tablecaption{Summary of Cloud Properties\label{tab:sumprop}}

2749: \tablehead{Cloud & \# of & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Central Coord.} &

2750: Closest & Surface Area & $\langle T \rangle$ & \# of & $\langle \xi \rangle$ & \# of & $\langle D({\rm Fe}) \rangle$ & \# of & $\langle D({\rm Mg}) \rangle$ & \# of & Morphology \\

2751: Name & Sight Lines & $l(^{\circ})$ & $b(^{\circ})$ & Star (pc) & (sq. deg) & (K) & Stars &  (km s$^{-1}$) & Sight Lines & & Sight Lines & & Sight Lines & \\}

2752: \startdata

2753: LIC    & 79 & 170 & $-10$ & ~2.6 & 18270 & ~7500 $\pm$ 1300 & 19 & 1.62 $\pm$ 0.75 & 19 & --1.12 $\pm$ 0.10 & 12 & --0.97 $\pm$ 0.23 & 21 & compact \\

2754: G      & 21 & 315 & $+00$ & ~1.3 & 8230 & ~5500 $\pm$ 400 & ~5 & 2.2 $\pm$ 1.1 & ~5 & --0.54 $\pm$ 0.11 & 4 & --0.36 $\pm$ 0.35 & ~5 & compact \\

2755: Blue   & 10 & 250 & $-30$ & ~2.6 & 2310 & ~3900 $\pm$ 2300 & ~3 & 2.64 $\pm$ 0.16 & ~3 & --0.84 $\pm$ 0.27 & 2 & --0.51 $\pm$ 0.49 & ~2  & compact \\

2756: Aql    & ~9 & ~40 & $-05$ & ~3.5 & 2960 & ~7000 $\pm$ 2800 & ~3 & 2.07 $\pm$ 0.64 & ~3 & (--0.96)\tablenotemark{a} & 1 & --0.69 $\pm$ 0.21 & ~3 & compact \\

2757: Eri    & ~8 & ~70 & $-20$ & ~3.5 & 1970 & ~5300 $\pm$ 4000 & ~3 & 3.6 $\pm$ 1.0 & ~3 & --0.39 $\pm$ 0.19 & 2 & --0.15 $\pm$ 0.30 & ~3 & compact \\

2758: Aur    & ~9 & 210 & $+10$ & ~3.5 & 1640 & ~(6710)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 & (1.2)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 &

2759:  (--1.13)\tablenotemark{a} & 1 & (--0.79)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 & filamentary \\

2760: Hyades & 14 & 180 & $-20$ & ~5.0 & 1810 & ~6200 $\pm$ 3800 & ~5 & 2.7 $\pm$ 1.2 & ~5 & --0.32 $\pm$ 0.62 & 4 & --1.06 $\pm$ 0.47 & ~5 & filamentary \\

2761: Mic    & 15 & ~40 & $+15$ & ~5.1 & 3550 & ~9900 $\pm$ 2000 & ~4 & 3.1 $\pm$ 1.0 & ~4 & --0.92 $\pm$ 0.43 & 2 & --0.03 $\pm$ 0.40 & ~4 & filamentary \\

2762: Oph    & ~6 & ~45 & $+25$ & ~5.1 & 1360 & ~(1700)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 & (3.3)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 &

2763:  \nodata & 0 & (--0.84)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1  & compact \\

2764: Gem    & 10 & 300 & $+40$ & ~6.7 & 3300 & ~6000 $\pm$ 1100 & ~3 & 1.63 $\pm$ 0.41 & ~3 & (--1.29)\tablenotemark{a} & 1 & --1.05 $\pm$ 0.16 & ~3 & filamentary \\

2765: NGP    & 15 & ~~5 & $+75$ & ~8.5 & 4020 & ~8000 $\pm$ 600 & ~4 & 1.23 $\pm$ 0.43 & ~4 & --1.04 $\pm$ 0.23 & 4 & --0.89 $\pm$ 0.15 & ~3 & compact \\

2766: Leo    & ~7 & 270 & $+55$ & 11.1 & 2400 & \nodata & ~0 & \nodata & ~0 & \nodata  & ~0 & \nodata & ~0  & compact \\

2767: Dor    & ~4 & 270 & $-50$ & 11.7 & 1550 & ~(7000)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 & (5.5)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 & 

2768: (--0.80)\tablenotemark{a} & 1 & (--0.65)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 & compact \\

2769: Vel    & ~7 & 300 & $-45$ & 14.9 & 2190 & (10600)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 & (3.5)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 & 

2770: \nodata & 0 & (--0.03)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 & compact\\

2771: Cet    & ~5 & 290 & $-40$ & 15.5 & 2270 & ~(6300)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 & (1.3)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 & 

2772: \nodata & 0 & (0.21)\tablenotemark{a} & ~1 & filamentary \\

2773: 

2774: 

2775: \enddata

2776: %\tablenotetext{a}{The farthest star that is within 10$^{\circ}$ of the cloud that is closer than the closest cloud member.}

2777: \tablenotetext{a}{Those clouds with only one sight line with a physical measurement are indicated in parentheses.  Since a weighted average is not possible, the listed properties should be considered uncertain.}

2778: 

2779: %{\it In situ} measurements of the temperature and direction of the interstellar flow into the solar system indicates that the solar system is passing through LIC material \citep{mobius04,redfield00}.}

2780: %\tablenotetext{c}{Because the LIC completely surrounds the solar system, its projected surface area is 4$\pi$ steradian or $\sim$41250 square degrees.  However, since we are near the edge of the LIC, there are areas of the sky for which we do not detect any LIC absorption.  The angular area given here indicates the area of the detection boundary of the LIC.}

2781: %\tablecomments{This table includes only those measurements that include 

2782: %independent fits to the line width of deuterium and at least one ion heavier 

2783: %than magnesium.}

2784: \end{deluxetable}  

2785: 

2786: 

2787: \end{document}

2788: 

2789: