1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: %%% Packages used %%%
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8: \usepackage{epsfig}
9:
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: % Our own commands %%%
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: \newcommand{\RE}{{\mathrm R}_{\mathrm{E}}}
14: \newcommand{\RS}{{\mathrm R}_{\mathrm{S}}}
15: \newcommand{\Dst}{{\mathrm D}_{\mathrm{st}}}
16: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
17: % End of our definitions %%%
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19:
20: \renewcommand{\floatsep}{0.00in}
21: \renewcommand{\dblfloatsep}{0.00in}
22: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.01}
23: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.99}
24: \renewcommand{\dbltopfraction}{0.99}
25: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.99}
26: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.99}
27: \renewcommand{\dblfloatpagefraction}{0.99}
28:
29: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
30: %%
31: %% PREAMBLE
32: %%
33: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
34: \lefthead{MANCHESTER ET AL.}
35: \righthead{Simulation of the October 28, 2003 CME}
36:
37: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
38: %
39: %% MANUSCRIPT DATES
40: %
41: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
42: \received{\today}
43: \revised{???}
44: \accepted{???}
45:
46: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
47: %
48: %% MANUSCRIPT INFORMATION
49: %
50: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
51: \authoraddr{
52: Center for Space Environment Modeling, University of Michigan,
53: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109-2143.
54: (chipm@umich.edu)}
55:
56: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
57: %
58: %% NUMBERING YOUR SECTIONS
59: %
60: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
61: \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
62:
63:
64: \begin{document}
65:
66: \title{Three-Dimensional MHD Simulation of the 2003 October 28 Coronal Mass Ejection: Comparison with LASCO Coronagraph Observations}
67:
68: \author{
69: Ward B.~Manchester IV,\altaffilmark{1} Angelos Vourlidas,\altaffilmark{2}
70: G{\'a}bor T{\'o}th,\altaffilmark{1} No{\'e} Lugaz,\altaffilmark{3}
71: Ilia I.~Roussev,\altaffilmark{3} Igor V.~Sokolov,\altaffilmark{1}
72: Tamas I.~Gombosi\altaffilmark{1} Darren L. De Zeeuw\altaffilmark{1}
73: Merav Opher\altaffilmark{4}}
74:
75: % Ward B.~Manchester % chipm@umich.edu
76: % Angelos Vourlidas} % avourlid@nrl.navy.mil
77: % Gabor Toth % gtoth@umich.edu
78: % No{\'e} Lugaz} % nlugaz@ifa.ha.edu
79: % Ilia I.~Roussev, % iroussev@ifa.ha.edu
80: % Tamas I.~Gombosi, % tamas@umich.edu
81: % Igor V.~Sokolov, % igorsok@umich.edu
82: % Darren L. De Zeeuw % darrens@umich.edu
83: % Merav Opher % mopher@physics.gmu.edu
84:
85: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Space Environment Modeling, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan}
86: \altaffiltext{2}{Naval Researach Laboratory, Washington D.C.}
87: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute For Astronomy, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii}
88: \altaffiltext{4}{George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia}
89:
90: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
91: %
92: %% ABSTRACT
93: %
94: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
95:
96: \begin{abstract}
97: We numerically model the coronal mass ejection (CME) event of
98: October 28, 2003 that erupted
99: from active region 10486 and propagated to Earth in less than
100: 20 hours causing severe geomagnetic storms. The magnetohydrodynamic
101: (MHD) model is formulated by first arriving at a steady
102: state corona and solar wind employing synoptic magnetograms.
103: We initiate two CMEs from the same active region, one approximately
104: a day earlier that preconditions the solar wind for the much faster
105: CME on the 28th. This second CME travels through the corona at
106: a rate of over 2500 km s$^{-1}$ driving a strong forward shock. We
107: clearly identify this shock in an image produced by the Large Angle
108: Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) C3, and reproduce the shock and
109: its appearance in synthetic white light images from the simulation.
110: We find excellent agreement with both the general morphology and
111: the quantitative brightness of the model CME with LASCO observations.
112: These results demonstrate that the CME shape is largely determined
113: by its interaction with the ambient solar wind and may not
114: be sensitive to the initiation process. We then show how the
115: CME would appear as observed by wide-angle coronagraphs
116: onboard the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO)
117: spacecraft. We find complex time evolution of the
118: white-light images as a result of the way in which the
119: density structures pass through the Thomson sphere. The simulation
120: is performed with the Space Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF).
121: \end{abstract}
122:
123: \keywords{MHD, coronal mass ejections, shock waves, numerical modeling}
124:
125: \section{Introduction}
126: The October-November period of 2003 saw some of the most energetic solar
127: flares and coronal mass ejections of any solar cycle. These eruptive events
128: came to be known as the Halloween Events and included 11 X-class flares,
129: 6 radiation storms and 4 geomagnetic storms. These eruptions originated
130: from three active regions (ARs), 10484, 10486 and 10488 of which 10486 was
131: the largest, most complex and most active producing 12 major coronal
132: mass ejections (CMEs). Three of these CMEs that occurred on October 28,
133: 29 and November 4 were particularly energetic with speeds in excess of
134: 2000 km s$^{-1}$ and were associated with X17, X10 and X28 flares respectively.
135: The October 28 CME was very geoeffective and damaged satellites, diverted
136: airplane routes, caused power failures in Sweden, disrupted
137: long-distance radio communications, and caused northern lights
138: (aurora borealis) as far south as Florida. The November 4 CME
139: was the most energetic of the Halloween Events, but occurred while
140: AR 10486 was on the western limb so that the CME was less geoeffective
141: as the CME was not directed toward Earth.
142:
143: Because of their extreme nature, the Halloween Events have been the
144: subject of a great deal of study, both observational as well as
145: theoretical and modeling efforts. The October 28 CME in particular
146: was well observed from Sun to Earth beginning with the vector magnetic
147: field of AR 10486 \citep[]{Liu:2005}, and surface flow measurements
148: \citep[]{Yang:2004, Deng:2006}. For this event, flare loops were
149: observed by TRACE \citep{Su:2006}, and the global coronal field
150: has been reconstructed from data taken from the Michelson Doppler
151: Imager (MDI) aboard the Solar and Heliospheric Observations (SOHO)
152: spacecraft \citep[]{Liu:2006}. Dense plasma associated with the October 28
153: CME has been observed to propagate past the Earth by the
154: Solar Mass Ejection Imager (SMEI) \citep[]{Jackson:2006} and was also
155: detected by interplanetary scintillation (IPS) \citep[]{Tokumaru:2007}.
156: Finally, the event was observed {\it in situ} by Wind and the
157: Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) \citep[]{Skoug:2004, Zurbuchen:2004},
158: which reveal magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) quantities in the solar wind as
159: well as ion abundances.
160:
161: Efforts to simulate the Halloween Events include those of
162: \citet{Intriligator:2005} who modeled the propagation of the CME
163: plasma from 2.5 $\RS$ to 10 AU with a three-dimensional (3D) kinematic model.
164: \citet{Krall:2006} modeled the 2003 October 28-30 period with a
165: one-and-a-half-dimensional (1.5D) reduced MHD model that describes
166: the self-similar expansion of a magnetic flux rope. In this case,
167: the authors also coupled the heliospheric results
168: with a 3D magnetosphere code and compared it with simulations
169: driven by the observed solar wind data. \citet{Liu:2006} modeled
170: the CME eruption in the solar corona with density and pressure
171: perturbations. \citet{Dryer:2004} and \citet{Wu:2005} both modeled
172: CME-driven shock propagation and predicted the shock arrival times
173: with reasonable success. This work to model a specific event marks a
174: clear distinction from non-event-specific CME simulations
175: \citep[e.g.][]{Usmanov:1995, Riley:2002, Manchester:2004b, Jacobs:2007},
176: and non-event-specific Sun-to-thermosphere space weather simulations
177: modeled by the Center for Space Environment Modeling (CSEM)
178: \citep[]{Toth:2005} and the Center for Integrated Space Weather
179: Modeling (CISM) \citep[]{Luhmann:2004}.
180:
181:
182: More recently, \citet{Toth:2007} modeled
183: the October 28 CME as part of a Sun-to-Earth space weather event that
184: included an in-depth description of the resulting geomagnetic storm.
185: This work by \citet{Toth:2007} is ground breaking in two regards. First,
186: like those by \citet{Lugaz:2007, Cohen:2007a}, it is the first 3D numerical
187: full MHD simulation to reproduce observed CMEs as they are
188: magnetically driven from active regions in the low corona.
189: The earliest attempt to model an observed CME (including the magnetic field)
190: propagating from the Sun to the Earth, is that of \citet{Wu:1999}.
191: This particular simulation is two-dimensional and did not capture
192: the structure of the solar wind or the active region, but did roughly
193: capture the magnetic cloud at 1 AU. More recent modeling efforts have
194: been 3D and capture the structure of the solar wind, but treat CME propagation
195: outside of the magnetosonic point $(r \approx 20 \RS)$ \citep[]{Odstrcil:2005}.
196: The second noteworthy aspect of the simulation by \citet{Toth:2007} is that
197: it is the first event
198: study to employ a framework to couple several individual codes to model the
199: physical domain extending from the corona to the Earth's upper atmosphere.
200: The framework used was the Space Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF)
201: developed by members of CSEM at the University of Michigan by
202: \citet{Toth:2005}. A framework for similar purposes is being developed
203: by CISM at Boston University.
204:
205: In this paper, we examine the simulation described by \citet{Toth:2007},
206: and concern ourselves with the physical properties of the
207: CME as it propagates from the low corona to Earth. In particular,
208: the detailed structure of the coronal and solar wind allow us to quantitatively
209: compare the model with Large Angle Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO)
210: C2 and C3 observations of the October 28 event. In this case, we
211: validate the accuracy of the simulation in reproducing the speed
212: mass, appearance (in scattered light), and shock properties of the
213: observed CME.
214: We also make wide-angle, large elongation Thomson-Scattered white
215: light images of the model to show how the CME would appear in
216: the wide angle coronagraphs of the Sun Earth Connection Corona
217: and Heliospheric Imager (SECCHI) instrument on board the
218: STEREO spacecraft. These synthetic images show that the CME
219: appears much different far from the Sun due to scattering affects
220: at large elongation.
221:
222: %section numbers
223: The rest of this paper is organized as follows: The SWMF, its components,
224: and numerical techniques are briefly discussed in section~2.
225: Section~3 provides a description of the CME simulation, the results
226: of which are compared to LASCO observations in section~4.
227: In section~5, we show how the CME would appear propagating past the
228: Earth in the SECCHI heliospheric imagers HI1 and HI2.
229: We conclude with a summary and an outlook for future development
230: in section~6.
231:
232: \section{Numerical Methods: SWMF and BATS-R-US}
233: The SWMF \citep[]{Toth:2005} couples models treating physical domains of the
234: space environment extending from the solar corona to the Earth's upper
235: atmosphere. The model coupling is flexible yet efficient, making faster than
236: real-time space weather simulations feasible on massively parallel computers.
237: Each model has its own dependent variables, a mathematical model, and a
238: numerical scheme with an appropriate grid structure and temporal discretization.
239: The physics domains may overlap with each other or they can interact through
240: a boundary surface. The SWMF is able to incorporate models from the community
241: and couple them with modest changes in the software of an individual model.
242: The SWMF is a fully functional and documented framework that provides
243: high-performance computational capability to simulate the physics from
244: the low solar corona to the upper atmosphere of the Earth.
245: Currently, the SWMF is composed of nine physics modules, and is driven by
246: external data such as magnetograms, flare and CME observations, satellites
247: upstream of the Earth (like ACE, Geotail and Wind), etc.
248: The SWMF can model any physically meaningful subset of the physics domains,
249: and is freely available via registration at\\
250: {\tt http://csem.engin.umich.edu/SWMF}.
251:
252: There were seven SWMF components used in the Halloween
253: storm simulations: Solar Corona (SC), Eruptive Event Generator (EE),
254: Inner Heliosphere (IH), Global Magnetosphere (GM), Inner Magnetosphere (IM),
255: Ionosphere Electrodynamics (IE), and Upper Atmosphere (UA). For
256: our purposes, the only relevant components are the SC, EE and IH that
257: model the corona, solar wind, and CME propagation from the active
258: region to 1 AU. Components SC, EE, and IH are based on the
259: BATS-R-US code \citep[]{Powell:1999, Gombosi:2001} that solves
260: the governing equations of MHD in a conservative finite volume form.
261: Non-ideal MHD terms are included through appropriate source terms.
262: The code uses a limited reconstruction that ensures second-order accuracy
263: away from discontinuities, while simultaneously providing the stability
264: that ensures non-oscillatory solutions.
265: In addition, the code employs several approximate Riemann solvers.
266: The resulting scheme solves for the hydrodynamic and electromagnetic
267: effects in a tightly coupled manner
268: that works equally well across several orders of magnitude
269: in plasma $\beta$ (the ratio of plasma pressure to magnetic pressure).
270: The BATS-R-US also uses a relatively simple yet effective block-based adaptive
271: mesh refinement (AMR) scheme to resolve structures spanning many length scales.
272: The BATS-R-US scales almost linearly to more than 1000 processors for a fixed
273: problem size, and fully implicit time stepping scheme is incorporated,
274: \citep[]{Toth:2006} that can be combined with explicit time stepping.
275:
276: %********************* FIGURE 01 *********************
277: \begin{figure*}[ht!]
278: \begin{minipage}[t] {1.0\linewidth}
279: \begin{center}
280: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.85]{f01.ps}
281: \end{center}
282: \end{minipage}\hfill
283: \caption{The initial condition of the corona for the October, 28 CME.
284: The panel on the left (a) shows the radial field strength, $B_r$ at the
285: base of the corona. The structure of the coronal magnetic field is
286: illustrated with blue and yellow lines for the closed field while
287: orange lines show the open field. The panel
288: on the right (b) shows a close up of AR 10486 with the superimposed
289: flux rope illustrated with field lines and a current density iso-surface
290: colored green.}
291: \label{initial}
292: \end{figure*}
293:
294:
295: The Solar Corona domain is a Cartesian box that extends from the surface
296: of the Sun to $-24\,\RS < x, y, z < 24\,\RS$, where $\RS$ is the radius
297: of the Sun. The physics of this domain is described by the equations of MHD
298: with additional source terms required to take into account the heating
299: and acceleration of the solar wind \citep[]{Groth:2000, Usmanov:2000}.
300: Recently, \citet{Cohen:2007b} developed a solar wind model based
301: on the empirical relationship between solar wind speed and magnetic flux tube
302: expansion \citep[]{Wang:1990}, which has been incorporated into the SWMF.
303: Here, we use the coronal model presented in \citet{Roussev:2003b}.
304: At the inner boundary of the SC component, the density, pressure,
305: velocity and magnetic field are defined at a height just above
306: the transition region. The magnetic field is obtained from a synoptic
307: solar magnetogram. The boundary conditions for the
308: temperature and mass density at the Sun are varied as a function
309: of magnetic field strength to achieve a realistic distribution of
310: fast and slow wind speeds near the Sun and at 1AU.
311: The velocity components at the inner boundary maintain
312: line-tying of the magnetic field to the rotating solar surface.
313: Differential rotation is currently neglected.
314: The flow at the outer boundary is usually superfast (faster than
315: the fast magnetosonic speed of the plasma), so no information
316: is propagating inward.
317:
318: The EE domain is in the Solar Corona, restricted to the active region
319: responsible for the CME. The EE in this case takes the form of a nonlinear
320: perturbation of the SC solution, which is made by superimposing a
321: modified version of the \citet{Titov:1999} flux rope to active region
322: 10486. The flux rope is in an initial state of force imbalance that
323: drives the eruption. This eruption generator follows from the
324: work of \citet{Roussev:2003a} who incorporated the \citet{Titov:1999}
325: flux rope in the BATS-R-US code.
326:
327: The IH domain extends from its inner boundary at $r=20\,\RS$ to a cube
328: extending to $-240\,\RS < x,y,z < 240\,\RS$, which encompasses Earth's orbit.
329: The physics of this domain is described by the equations of ideal MHD,
330: solved in an inertial frame, on a Cartesian grid.
331: The inner boundary conditions of the IH component are obtained from the
332: SC component. The flow at the outer boundary of the IH component is always
333: assumed to be superfast.
334:
335: %********************* FIGURE 02 *********************
336: \begin{figure*}[ht!]
337: \begin{minipage}[t] {1.0\linewidth}
338: \begin{center}
339: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.75]{f02.ps}
340: \end{center}
341: \end{minipage}\hfill
342: \caption{The structure of the CME at time after initiation (TAI) equal
343: to 15 minutes and 45 minutes is shown in
344: the top and bottom rows respectively. In Panels
345: (a) and (c) the electron density is shown in color with magnetic
346: stream lines (confined to the plane) drawn white and the numerical
347: mesh drawn black. These images show the ejected magnetic flux
348: rope traveling toward the Earth in the $-x$ direction with the
349: center of the rope and densest plasma concentrations below the
350: equatorial plane. Panels (b) and (d) show the ratio of the density
351: relative to the pre-event state on $y-z$ planes positioned near the
352: center of the CME at $x=-5 \RS$ and $x=-8 \RS$, respectively.
353: The white and black circles are drawn at 2 and 3.7 $\RS$, respectively,
354: corresponding to the occulting disks of C2 and C3, respectively.
355: These images show the greatest density enhancement at the bottom
356: $(-z)$ of a nearly circular shell type structure that evolves
357: in a self-similar fashion.}
358: \label{cmedensity}
359: \end{figure*}
360:
361: \section{Halloween Storm Simulation}
362: \subsection{Initial State}
363: Here, we summarize the basic description of the CME simulation
364: that was first presented in \citet{Toth:2007}. For more details,
365: we refer the reader to this earlier paper. The simulation begins
366: with the construction of a steady state corona and solar wind.
367: The magnetic field at the inner boundary (base of the corona) of the
368: SC component is specified from an MDI synoptic magnetogram centered
369: around the time of the October 28 eruption. The initial volumetric
370: field is specified with a potential-field-source-surface
371: extrapolation fit to this map. The computational grid is highly
372: refined around AR 10486 where the smallest cells are about
373: $3\times10^{-3}\,\RS$. The grid is refined to $0.1\,\RS$ within a
374: $1\,\RS$ diameter cylinder extending along the Sun-Earth line.
375: The SC component is then run to steady state allowing the
376: solar wind to relax.
377: Figure~\ref{initial}, Panel (a) shows the steady state solution.
378: Here the radial field strength is shown in color at the inner boundary,
379: and field lines are drawn extending out into the corona.
380: Orange lines are open while closed lines are shown in blue.
381: The SC is run in the Heliographic Rotating (HGR) coordinate
382: system with the sidereal Carrington rotation period of 25.38 days.
383: An offset angle around the $Z$ axis places the Earth in the
384: $-X,Z$ half plane at the time of the large eruption on October 28 CME.
385:
386: The IH component is coupled to the SC component at $20\,\RS$, and rapidly
387: achieves steady state as the superfast wind blows through the domain.
388: During the steady state run, the IH component uses a rotating coordinate
389: system, which is then switched to Heliographic Inertial (HGI) with
390: an offset angle that puts the Earth in the $-X,Z$ half plane
391: (the orbital motion of the Earth is neglected). The grid resolution
392: is $1/4\,\RS$ near the inner boundary and also along the Sun-Earth
393: line within a cylinder of $1\,\RS$ radius, while the largest cells
394: are $4\,\RS$.
395:
396: \subsection{Generating Eruptive Events}
397: The October 28 event was preceded by several smaller CMEs, which
398: significantly modified the ambient solar wind.
399: To take into account the preconditioning effect of previous CMEs on the solar
400: wind, we start our simulation on October 26, when a smaller CME was launched
401: at approximately 07:00 UT from AR 10486. For this first CME, we use 07:24 UT
402: as the initiation time, which is within the uncertainties of the observations.
403: The much more energetic CME that is the focus of this study occurred at
404: approximately 10:54 UT. This eruption occurred near disk center
405: producing a full halo CME.
406:
407: %********************* FIGURE 03 *********************
408: \begin{figure*}[ht!]
409: \begin{minipage}[t] {1.0\linewidth}
410: \begin{center}
411: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.85]{f03.ps}
412: \end{center}
413: \end{minipage}\hfill
414: \caption{Three-dimensional density structure of the model CME 15 minutes after
415: initiation. Iso-surfaces of the density enhancement (relative to background)
416: are shown at levels of 0.9, 2 and 5 in blue, green and red respectively.
417: The green iso-surface shows the extent of the shock front, while the blue
418: iso-surface shows the low density rarefaction behind the CME. The Sun is
419: shown with a yellow sphere.}
420: \label{3dCME1}
421: \end{figure*}
422:
423: %********************* FIGURE 04 *********************
424: \begin{figure*}[ht!]
425: \begin{minipage}[t] {1.0\linewidth}
426: \begin{center}
427: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.90]{f04.eps}
428: \end{center}
429: \end{minipage}\hfill
430: \caption{Comparison of observed and modeled CME velocity.
431: The solid line shows the modeled CME velocity moving
432: directly toward the Earth, while the dashed line shows the model
433: velocity projected on the plane of the sky 177 degrees (counter clock wise)
434: from the north polar axis. At this same location in the plane of the sky,
435: the CME velocity is derived from LASCO observations and plotted with stars.
436: We find that the model briefly reaches a velocity of 4000 km s$^{-1}$ at
437: $4.5 \RS$ before falling to 2000 km s$^{-1}$ at $20 \RS$.
438: In contrast, the CME is observed to decelerate from 1890 km s$^{-1}$
439: to 1699 km s$^{-1}$ as it travels from $2.3 \RS$ to $26.3 \RS$.}
440: \label{velocity}
441: \end{figure*}
442:
443: %********************* FIGURE 05 *********************
444: \begin{figure*}[ht!]
445: \begin{minipage}[t] {1.0\linewidth}
446: \begin{center}
447: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.60]{f05.ps}
448: \end{center}
449: \end{minipage}\hfill
450: \caption{Comparison of observed (left) and simulated (right)
451: Thomson-scattered white light brightness. The color images show
452: the total brightness divided by that of the pre-event background.
453: White circles show the solar limb, filled black circles show occulting disks.
454: Panel (a) shows the LASCO C2 observation at 11:30 UT, while LASCO
455: C3 observations are shown in panels (c) and (e) at 11:42 and 12:18,
456: respectively. Panels (b) (d) and (f) show model coronagraph images
457: at 13, 21 and 50 minutes after initiation. Here, we find that the model
458: achieves remarkable quantitative agreement with both the magnitude and
459: spatial distribution of the observed brightness.}
460: \label{lascomparo}
461: \end{figure*}
462:
463: %********************* FIGURE 06 *********************
464: \begin{figure*}[ht!]
465: \begin{minipage}[t] {1.0\linewidth}
466: \begin{center}
467: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.90]{f06.ps}
468: \end{center}
469: \end{minipage}\hfill
470: \caption{Shock structure as revealed by coronagraph images.
471: Panels (a) and (b) respectively show color images of the total brightness
472: (divided by the pre-event brightness) for LASCO C3 (time = 12:18)
473: and for the simulation 50 minutes after initiation. The color legend is
474: chosen to highlight the faint (2 \%) increase in brightness
475: at the shock found at the outer edge of the halo. The model
476: shows the same faint increase in brightness at the shock as well as the
477: capturing the width of the faint plasma sheath. Panels (c) and (d) show
478: respectively line plots of the brightness and electron density as
479: functions of distance from Sun center along the black line at 177
480: degrees from the north polar axis. Model and observations are
481: shown with dashed and solid lines respectively. The line plots
482: reveal that the simulation quantitatively reproduces the observed
483: brightness increase behind the shock as well as the inferred density
484: increase at the shock.}
485: \label{shock}
486: \end{figure*}
487:
488:
489: Here, we initiate the CMEs by inserting magnetic flux
490: ropes (the size of the active region) based on the modified
491: \citet{Titov:1999} model. In Figure~\ref{initial} (Panel (b)), the
492: flux rope for the October 28 eruption is seen arching above AR 10486.
493: The location and orientation of the flux ropes
494: were chosen to arch over the dipolar part of the active region.
495: The active region can be easily identified in the high resolution synoptic
496: map obtained from the observed photospheric magnetic field.
497: The density in the loop was obtained from the size and estimated mass
498: of the CMEs. The rope's
499: magnetic field does not match that observed at the photosphere. The reason
500: for the discrepancy is that the field of the rope is highly twisted
501: and is orthogonal to the polarity inversion line.
502: In contrast, the measured magnetic field was observed
503: to be in a highly sheared configuration running
504: parallel to the inversion line \citep[]{Liu:2005}.
505: In spite of this limitation, the magnetic field strength
506: of the flux ropes can be adjusted to produce eruptions that
507: match LASCO observations of the CME speeds at 20 solar radii
508: (1500 and 2500\,km s$^{-1}$ for the October 26 and October 28 events,
509: respectively). For the first CME, the magnetic flux rope has a
510: free enegy $2.3\times 10^{32}$ ergs, while the second faster
511: CME requires nearly ten times as much energy at $2.0\times 10^{33}$ ergs.
512:
513: After 20 minutes from the start of the time dependent simulation, the
514: leading shock of the first CME reaches a radial distance of 5.5$\,\RS$
515: at a speed slightly exceeding 2100\,km s$^{-1}$.
516: The first CME reaches the SC/IH boundary at
517: 20$\,\RS$ after about 1.7 hours, and the speed of the leading shock is
518: the observed 1500\,km s$^{-1}$. The first CME is propagating in a direction
519: about 30 degrees off from the Sun-Earth line, but the flanks of the shock
520: reach the Earth 45 hours after the eruption at 4:30 UT Oct 28. The simulated
521: solar wind velocity at the Earth increases from about 350 km s$^{-1}$
522: to 550 km s$^{-1}$,
523: which is a good approximation to the solar wind conditions preceding
524: the arrival of the October 28 CME as observed by the ACE satellite
525: \citep[]{Skoug:2004, Zurbuchen:2004}.
526:
527: The second CME is initiated at 10:54 October 28 with a flux rope that is 50\%
528: larger in radius than the previous one. Due to the larger size and stronger
529: magnetic field, the second CME reaches a speed of 2500\,km s$^{-1}$ (on the
530: Sun-Earth line) measured at 20$\,\RS$. After 15 minutes, the second CME
531: reaches 9$\,\RS$ with a shock speed near 3200\,km s$^{-1}$. The shock reaches
532: the SC/IH boundary at 20$\,\RS$ in less than an hour with a speed around
533: 2800\,km s$^{-1}$. The density structure of the October 28 CME is shown in
534: Figure \ref{cmedensity}. Panels (a) and (c) show a color
535: representation of the electron density on the meridional plane $(x-z)$ at 15
536: and 45 minutes after CME initiation, respectively. White lines show
537: the direction of the magnetic field confined to the plane.
538: In these pictures, the magnetic flux rope is clearly seen to be
539: expelled from the corona. Panels (b) and (d) show the density ratio
540: (relative to the pre-event corona) on $y-z$ located at $x = -5 \RS$
541: and $x = -8 \RS$ at 15 and 45 minutes after initiation, respectively.
542: The white and black circles correspond to the solar limb and LASCO
543: C3 coronagraph, respectively. These images show the nearly self-similar
544: evolution of the plasma expelled in the CME. The plasma is
545: distributed in a shell with the greatest density in the southern
546: hemisphere.
547:
548: The three-dimensional density of the CME is shown in Figure~\ref{3dCME1}
549: with iso-surfaces of the density enhancement (i.e. density divided by
550: the pre-event level) at $t= 15$ minutes after initiation.
551: Blue, green and red iso-surfaces corresponding to values of 0.9, 2, and 5
552: are shown from four perspectives: (a) side, (b) polar, (c) back and
553: (d) front facing Earth. The green surface effectively shows the extent
554: of the shock front, the red surface shows the core material, while the blue
555: iso-surface shows the density depleted cavity. The cavity forms as
556: a rarefaction behind the flux rope, while the densest plasma is located
557: in the southern hemisphere, both in and below the flux rope. The
558: polar and back views (Panels (b) and (d) respectively) best show the
559: density enhancement at the southern end of the CME.
560: Comparison of Figure~\ref{3dCME1} with Figure~6 in \citet{Jackson:2006}
561: also suggests that the simulated 3D density structure qualitatively agrees
562: with the density enhancements reconstructed from SMEI observations.
563:
564:
565: \section{Comparisons with LASCO Observations}
566: CMEs are most frequently observed in visible light that is Thomson
567: scattered by coronal electrons within the CME. In addition to this electron
568: scattered photospheric light (referred to as the K-corona), there is also
569: light scattered by interplanetary dust that is referred to as the F-corona.
570: There are significant differences between the two components of scattered
571: light. First, the F-corona is unpolarized within 5-6$\,\RS$, while the
572: K-corona is polarized with components both radial and tangential to the solar
573: limb \citep[]{Billings:1966}. Second, the brightness of the K-corona falls
574: off much more rapidly with distance from the Sun such that it dominates close
575: to the Sun, is roughly equal to the F-corona at $r \approx 4\,\RS$,
576: and is much dimmer than the F-corona far from the Sun. Finally, the
577: F-corona is nearly constant in time and is believed to be largely
578: unaffected by CMEs.
579:
580: The corona is optically thin in white light,
581: so that the intensity of scattered light along a
582: given line of sight (LOS) is the integrated contribution of all
583: electrons along the line. The contribution to a given LOS is
584: highly dependent on the location of the electron relative to the
585: Sun and the observer \citep[]{Billings:1966}. Close to the Sun, the
586: scattering is heavily weighted in the plane of the sky. Coronagraphs
587: located in space observe coronal light without contending with
588: atmospheric scattering, which makes it possible to view the
589: corona far from the Sun. In the case of LASCO, the C2 and C3
590: coronagraphs have fields of view extending to 6 and 32$\,\RS$
591: respectively. More recently, SMEI and STEREO coronagraphs have
592: observed Thomson scattered light at very large angles from the Sun
593: that extend beyond Earth's orbit.
594:
595: In this section, we make comparisons between synthetic
596: coronagraph images constructed from our model CME, and LASCO observations.
597: The synthetic images are created by numerically integrating the Thomson
598: scattered light along a LOS for each pixel with the appropriate
599: scattering function \citep[]{Billings:1966}. Images of numerical
600: CME models have been made in this fashion before
601: \citep[e.g.]{Wu:1999, Odstrcil:2003, Manchester:2004a, Lugaz:2005}. More
602: recently, synthetic images have been made for models of specific CME events, and
603: qualitatively compared to LASCO images \citep[e.g.][]{Lugaz:2007, Cohen:2007a}.
604: Here, we go further, and for the first time make truly
605: quantitative comparisons with the data. To make the comparison, we
606: process the synthetic data and the LASCO data in the same way and
607: display the resulting images in identical formats. We account
608: for F-corona far from the Sun where it is the dominant source
609: of scattered light. Since our MHD model only allows us to directly treat
610: electron density, we estimate the contribution of dust scattering
611: with the same power-law empirical relationship used to make the
612: LASCO images. In this case, the background F-corona brightness
613: is taken to have the form $B_F = c r^{(0.22\cos(2\theta) - 2.47)}$
614: \citep[]{Koutchmy:1985}.
615: Here, we estimate the magnitude of $c$ by setting $B_F = B_K$ at
616: $r = 4\,\RS$ where $B_K$ is the background polar brightness
617: of the K-corona taken from \citet{Saito:1977}.
618:
619: %********************* FIGURE 07 *********************
620: \begin{figure*}[ht!]
621: \begin{minipage}[t] {1.0\linewidth}
622: \begin{center}
623: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.90]{f07.ps}
624: \end{center}
625: \end{minipage}\hfill
626: \caption{Views of the model CME as it would appear in the
627: SECCHI coronagraphs. The CME is shown in a time series
628: propagating through the fields of view of COR1, COR2, HI1 and HI2
629: that extend from 1.4 to 4$\,\RS$, 2 to 15$\,\RS$, 12 to 84$\,\RS$
630: (20 degrees wide), and 66 to 381$\,\RS$ (70 degrees wide) respectively.
631: In this case, the HI images are
632: taken from the point of view of STEREO A, 22 degrees ahead of the
633: Earth, while COR images are made from the location of Earth.}
634: \label{STEREO}
635: \end{figure*}
636:
637:
638: The results of the comparison are shown in Figure~\ref{lascomparo}.
639: Here, images of the October 28 CME as observed with LASCO C2 (Panel (a))
640: and C3 (Panels (c) and (e)) are shown for times $t =$ 11:30, 11:42
641: and 12:18 respectively. Panels (b), (d), and (f) of Figure~\ref{lascomparo}
642: show the synthetic images at times $t =$ 13, 21, and 50 minutes after
643: initiation when the model CME is closest in size to that of the corresponding
644: LASCO image. In reality, the CME travels slower than in our model
645: with the observed sequence of images occurring at approximately 36, 48, and 84
646: minutes after initiation. In both data and model, the color images show
647: the total brightness divided by that of the pre-event background.
648: White circles show the solar limb, and filled black circles show the occulting
649: disks. In all cases, we find extremely good quantitative agreement
650: in both the magnitude and spatial distribution of the observed brightness.
651: In these images, the greatest brightness is below the southern limb of
652: the Sun, that extends in an arc over the eastern limb, while the
653: the dimmest part of the CME is found in the north western
654: quadrant. This brightness distribution corresponds with the position of
655: AR 10486, which was located at 20 degrees below the equator on October 28.
656: By 12:18 UT, the observed brightness patterns is
657: more highly structured than the model, showing evidence
658: of a bright core in the south. The model (Panel (f)) lacks these
659: fine details, and retains a single bright arc in the south.
660:
661: \subsection{CME Mass}
662: To further quantify the comparison between the our numerical model and
663: the LASCO coronagraph observations, we calculate the CME mass in both
664: cases in an identical fashion. This mass is derived by integrating
665: the excess brightness of the K-corona with the assumption
666: that the plasma is in the plane of the sky, which sets a lower
667: limit on CME mass. The F-corona is subtracted out from the observations
668: and does not affect the mass. We restrict this integral to the brightest
669: portion of the CME that extends from 235 to 330 degrees as measured
670: from the $-y$ axis in Figure \ref{lascomparo}. In the case of
671: the C2 field of view (top row of Figure \ref{lascomparo}), this
672: integration sector extends from 2.0 to 6.0 $\,\RS$, and for the C3
673: field of view (middle and bottom rows of Figure \ref{lascomparo})
674: the sector extends from 4.0 to 16.4$\,\RS$. With these criteria,
675: the CME masses derived from observations at $t =$ 11:30, 11:42 and
676: 12:18 UT are $1.50 \times 10^{16}$ g, $1.55 \times 10^{16}$ g, and
677: $1.70 \times 10^{16}$ g, respectively. The corresponding masses of
678: the model CME (Panels (b), (d), and (f)) are,
679: respectively, $2.23 \times 10^{16}$ g, $2.16 \times 10^{16}$ g, and
680: $4.90 \times 10^{16}$ g.
681:
682: The observed masses are approximately 30\% less than that of the model at times
683: $t =$ 11:30 UT and 11:42 UT, which is consistent with the larger filling
684: factor of the model event.
685: The slight decrease in model CME mass found from Panel (d) is the
686: result of a greater part of the CME being obscured by the occulting disk.
687: By 12:18 the CME mass is observed to increase by 13 \%, while the
688: model mass (as shown in Panel (f)) more than doubles.
689: We expect the mass of fast CMEs to increase as plasma is swept up as
690: they travel from the Sun as shown in numerical simulations
691: \citep[]{Manchester:2004a, Lugaz:2005}. However, the mass increase seen in
692: LASCO observations is attributed to mass entering the coronagraph
693: field of view from below the occulter \citep[]{Vourlidas:2000}. In general,
694: there is not yet proof of a plasma pileup in the low corona by CMEs.
695: In the case of our simulation, we believe that the CME mass increases
696: faster than what is observed because of the excess speed of the CME.
697: For the observed event, the (excess) mass continues to increase by
698: almost an order of magnitude, to $13.6 \times 10^{16}$ g as measured
699: with SMEI on October 29, 12:00 UT as the CME passed the Earth
700: \citep[]{Jackson:2006}.
701:
702: %********************* FIGURE 08 *********************
703: \begin{figure*}[ht!]
704: \begin{minipage}[t] {1.0\linewidth}
705: \begin{center}
706: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.90]{f08.ps}
707: \end{center}
708: \end{minipage}\hfill
709: \caption{Synthetic image of the CME as it would appear from
710: SECCHI-HI2A one year into the mission (22 degrees ahead of the
711: Earth). The total brightness is shown in a time sequence
712: at intervals $t =$, 9.1, 13.1, 18.3, and 22.3 hours in panels
713: (a), (b), (c) and (d), respectively. Here, we see the CME propagate
714: into the field of view on the right hand side of Panel (a), appear
715: to stall in Panel (b), and then begin to brighten on the left hand
716: sides of Panels (c) and (d). This type of evolution is not observed
717: close to the Sun, and occurs at large elongation because of the
718: passage of the CME density structure over the spherical surface
719: of maximum scattering.}
720: \label{HI2A}
721: \end{figure*}
722:
723:
724: \subsection{Shock Identification}
725: Faint arcs are frequently observed at the outer edges of
726: fast CMEs viewed in coronagraph images, yet it has been difficult to
727: conclusively identify these arcs as shocks.
728: The earliest example of shock identification is that of \citet{Sime:1987}
729: who observed a bright loop at the front of a fast CME.
730: In that case, the presence of a shock was inferred from its high speed
731: (1070 km s$^{-1}$), the absence of any deflections preceding the shock,
732: and the fact that the expanding shock front did not cease
733: its lateral motion to form stationary legs. More recently,
734: \citet{Vourlidas:2003} observed a similar feature with LASCO that they
735: identified as a shock wave. In this work, a numerical simulation
736: was employed to model the shock's appearance and confirm its presence in
737: the coronagraph image. More recent MHD simulations have also found
738: manifestations of CME driven shocks in synthetic coronagraph
739: images \citep[e.g.][]{Manchester:2004a, Lugaz:2007}.
740: Perhaps the most compelling observational evidence for shocks appearing
741: as visible components of CMEs in LASCO images is presented in
742: \citet{Raymond:2000} and \citet{Mancuso:2002}. Here, shocks were
743: observed simultaneously in the low corona $(r < 3\,\RS)$ by LASCO, the
744: Ultraviolet Coronagraph Spectrometer (UVCS) and as type II radio
745: burst. UVCS gave clear spectroscopic evidence for the presence
746: of shock fronts, while radio bursts indicated the presence of
747: shock-accelerated electrons.
748:
749: %********************* FIGURE 09 *********************
750: \begin{figure*}[ht!]
751: \begin{minipage}[t] {1.0\linewidth}
752: \begin{center}
753: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.90]{f09.ps}
754: \end{center}
755: \end{minipage}\hfill
756: \caption{Synthetic image of the CME as it would appear from
757: SECCHI-HI2B one year into the mission (22 degrees behind the
758: Earth). The total brightness is shown in a time sequence
759: at intervals $t =$, 9.1, 13.1, 18.3, and 22.3 hours in panels
760: (a), (b), (c) and (d), respectively. Here, we see the CME propagate
761: into the field of view on the left hand side of Panel (a), noticably
762: brighten in Panel (b), fade in Panel (c), and then all but disappear
763: in Panel (d). This evolution is much different than that shown
764: in Figure \ref{HI2A}, and illustrates the 3D structure viewed
765: in the opposite direction as seen by the HI2A coronagraph.}
766: \label{HI2B}
767: \end{figure*}
768:
769: %********************* FIGURE 10 *********************
770: \begin{figure*}[ht!]
771: \begin{minipage}[t] {1.0\linewidth}
772: \begin{center}
773: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.90]{f10.ps}
774: \end{center}
775: \end{minipage}\hfill
776: \caption{The time evolution of the density structure of the CME on the
777: equatorial plane. The density is shown in color in a time sequence
778: at intervals $t =$, 9.1, 13.1, 18.3, and 22.3 hours in panels (a), (b), (c) and
779: (d) respectively. The locations of the Sun, Earth, and STEREO A and it's
780: field of view are shown along with the equator of the Thomson sphere,
781: the location of maximum scattering into the observer's LOS. The
782: panels correspond to the same times shown in Figure \ref{HI2A}, and
783: clearly show how dense plasma crosses the Thomson sphere to produce
784: the time evolution of brightness seen in Figure \ref{HI2A}}.
785: \label{rho1AU}
786: \end{figure*}
787:
788:
789: In our simulation, we can conclusively identify a shock front and
790: determine its appearance in synthetic coronagraph images.
791: By detailed comparison with the observations, we can then clearly
792: demonstrate the existence of a shock front in the corona.
793: For this purpose, we reexamine the coronagraph data presented in
794: the bottom row of Figure \ref{lascomparo}. We again show the brightness,
795: but with the color contours adjusted in Figure \ref{shock} to more clearly
796: show the faint features at the outer-most edge of the observed and
797: modeled CME in Panels (a) and (b) respectively.
798: In both panels, we see very similar faint rims at the outer
799: edge of the CME where the color makes a transition from
800: blue-green and yellow indicating an increase in brightness at
801: a level between 1 and 2\%. This rim has a width of 2$\,\RS$ and extends
802: out to $16\,\RS$ from the Sun. In the data, this faint rim is near the
803: noise level and we draw a curved black line to mark its outer boundary.
804:
805: For a more detailed comparison, we extract the brightness and electron
806: density along radial lines (shown in Figure \ref{shock}, Panels (a) and (b))
807: that pass through the southern outer edge of the CME.
808: Panel (c) shows both the observed and modeled brightness with solid
809: and dashed lines respectively. We find very good agreement between
810: the model and the observations. Both cases exhibit a similar steep
811: drop in brightness that levels off forming the faint rim, where
812: the noise in the observations is close to the signal level.
813: For the purpose of the comparison, we have aligned these features in
814: the radial direction by shifting model results a small amount $(+0.62\,\RS)$.
815: In Panel (d), we plot (solid line) the electron density deduced from
816: observations under the assumption of an axisymmetric distribution
817: around the Sun. The model electron density is extracted along
818: a line extending from the center of the Sun, and passing through the
819: southern most extent of the disturbance near $x,y,z = -8.6, 0.83, -15.9\,\RS$.
820: The projection of this line on the $y-z$ plane corresponds to line
821: shown in Panel (b). We plot this data in Panel (d) with a
822: dashed line and translate the model density in the radial
823: direction to align with the observed quantities.
824: We find remarkable agreement between the two electron densities,
825: where both increase from approximately 2000 to 10000 cm$^{-3}$
826: at the outer edge of the faint rim between 14 and $17\,\RS$.
827: In the simulation, we can conclusively identify this density jump
828: as a strong fast-mode shock driven by plasma moving at 2010 km s$^{-1}$.
829: The density increase at the shock is very near the theoretical limit of
830: $(\gamma +1)/(\gamma -1) = 5$ for $\gamma = 1.5$ used in the simulation.
831: The shock is smeared out over a distance of $2\,\RS$ by grid
832: resolution at $1/4\,\RS$. By a detailed comparison between the simulation
833: and the observations, we clearly demonstrate the existence of a shock front
834: in the LASCO C3 image at $t =$ 12:18.
835:
836: The overall 3D shape of the shock front is seen in Figure \ref{3dCME1},
837: from which we can discern why the shocked plasma is so faint.
838: The outer edge of the shock front is $5\,\RS$ from the plane of
839: the sky and is sharply curved at its greatest distance from the
840: $x$ axis. The lines-of-sight at the outer edge of the CME graze the
841: shock surface, and even though there is nearly a factor of four
842: increase in density at shock, the enhancement occurs over such a
843: short distance that it results in a very small increase in brightness.
844: The brightness increases as the lines of sight pass through
845: progressively longer distances of compressed plasma behind the shock.
846: For the numerical model, the decrease in brightness occurs faster
847: than what is observed, in part because the shock front is smeared
848: out by the limited numerical resolution.
849:
850: \section{CME Appearance at Large Elongation: STEREO-SECCHI Predictions}
851:
852: In this section, we make wide-angle, large elongation Thomson-scattered white
853: light images of the model to show how the CME would appear in the
854: coronagraphs of the Sun Earth Connection Corona and Heliospheric Imager
855: (SECCHI) instruments onboard the STEREO spacecraft \citep[]{Howard:2007}.
856: The fields of view of the four SECCHI
857: coronagraphs: COR1, COR2, HI1, and HI2 give complete coverage extending
858: from the low corona to beyond the Earth's orbit as shown in Figure
859: \ref{STEREO}. COR1, COR2 coronagraphs are centered on
860: the Sun with fields of view that extend from 1.4 to 4$\,\RS$ and
861: 2 to 15 $\RS$ respectively. HI1 and HI2 are pointed toward the
862: Sun-to-Earth line with fields of view that extend from 12 to 84$\,\RS$
863: and 66 to $381\,\RS$, respectively. Figure \ref{STEREO} shows
864: synthetic COR1 and COR2 images of our model of the October 28
865: CME as it appears from the location of the Earth. HI1 and HI2
866: images show the CME from a location 22 degrees ahead of the Earth where
867: STEREO A will be one year into it's mission.
868:
869: Thomson scattering has a strong angular dependence such that scattering
870: into a LOS is highly dependent the on location of the electron relative to the
871: Sun and the observer \citep[]{Billings:1966}. The region of space for which
872: there is maximum scattering into LOS is in the shape of a sphere that contains
873: the Sun and the observer as see in Figure \ref{rho1AU}.
874: Close to the Sun, the scattering is heavily weighted to the plane
875: of the sky. At large elongation (more then $60\,\RS$ from the Sun),
876: the spherical shape of the maximum scattering surface becomes
877: significant to the appearance of coronagraph images \citep[]{Vourlidas:2006}.
878:
879: Our model provides an opportunity to examine the effects of the angular
880: dependence of Thomson scattering on the appearance of CMEs at large
881: elongation as seen in the HI2 coronagraphs.
882: Figure \ref{HI2A} shows the time evolution of the model CME as it would appear
883: from SECCHI-HI2A one year into the mission (22 degrees ahead of the
884: Earth). The total brightness is shown in a time sequence
885: at intervals $t =$, 9.1, 13.1, 18.3, and 22.3 hours in panels
886: (a), (b), (c) and (d), respectively. The CME is seen to propagate
887: into the field of view on the right hand side of Panel (a), appears
888: to stall in Panel (b), and then reappears on the left hand
889: sides of Panels (c) and (d) without ever being bright in the middle
890: of the field of view. (A movie is available for the online version
891: of this paper.) Figure \ref{HI2B} shows the corresponding
892: series of images that would be made be SECCHI-HI2B. In this case,
893: the spacecraft is 22 degrees behind the Earth with the HI2B instrument
894: pointing toward the Sun-Earth line in the opposite direction as HI2A.
895: From this perspective, the CME enters the HI2B field of view from the
896: left hand side seen in Figure \ref{HI2B}, Panel (a). Here, the CME appears
897: as an arc that first brightens as seen in Panel (b) and then gradually
898: fades away as seen in Panels (c) and (d).
899:
900: The complex behavior shown in the model HI2 images is not seen in
901: standard coronagraph images, and was not found in the simulated
902: HI2 images of a less structured CME examined by \citet{Lugaz:2005}.
903: The reason the CME fades in and out is because of multiple crossings of
904: the Thomson sphere by dense arcs that propagate through the field of view
905: of HI2A as illustrated in Figure \ref{rho1AU} \citep[]{Vourlidas:2006}.
906: Here, for the same time sequence as shown in Figure \ref{HI2A},
907: we show the mass density in color on the equatorial ($x-y$)
908: plane. We mark the intersection of the Thomson sphere with the
909: equatorial plane with a white circle. The position of STEREO A
910: is marked along with black lines roughly showing the field of
911: view of the HI2 coronagraph. Dense plasma is preferentially brightened
912: in close proximity to the Thomson sphere. At $t = 9.1$ hours, a dense
913: arc of plasma crosses the Thomson sphere from the right hand side.
914: This arc begins to move away from the Thomson sphere followed
915: by a cavity at times $t = 13.1$ and 18.3 hours, which explains the
916: dimming on the right hand side of the field of view. By time
917: $t = 22.3$ hours, dense plasma on the Thomson sphere is found
918: directly in front of the space craft on the left hand side,
919: and far across the Thomson sphere on the right hand side.
920: This two-sided distribution of plasma and its proximity
921: to the Thomson sphere coincides with the bright arcs seen in
922: the left and right hand sides of the field of view seen in
923: Panel (d) of Figure \ref{HI2A}.
924:
925:
926: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
927:
928: We have preformed a detailed analysis of a 3D MHD time-dependent
929: simulation of flux-rope-driven CMEs originating from AR 10408 on October
930: 26 and 28, 2003 \citep[]{Toth:2007}.
931: The simulation was carried out with the SWMF in which propagation of
932: the CMEs were followed from the low corona to beyond 1 AU.
933: We have created synthetic coronagraph images of the October 28 event
934: and made strict quantitative comparisons of these images with those
935: made my LASCO C2 and C3. The simulation closely reproduces the
936: appearance of the October 28 CME, both in the morphology and magnitude of
937: Thomson scattered light through the fields of view of both LASCO C2 and C3.
938: Furthermore, the CME masses calculated from the synthetic coronagraph images
939: and the LASCO observations also are in close agreement.
940:
941: We have identified a shock front at the southern edge
942: of the CME. A detailed analysis shows that the appearance of the
943: CME-driven-shock in a synthetic coronagrpah image closely matches
944: the same structure found the LASCO C3 image at 12:18 UT on October 28.
945: Both the rigor of this quantitative comparison and the fidelity in
946: reproducing coronagraph images of CMEs is unprecedented.
947: This is all the more remarkable in that there was no parameter fitting
948: to produce the CME images, as only the CME speed at $20\,\RS$ was used as
949: a guide in specifying the flux rope.
950:
951: The simulation allows the opportunity to view the October 28 CME as it
952: would appear at large elongation in the HI2 coronagraph \citep[]{Lugaz:2005}.
953: Here, we found complex time evolution of the CME in the HI2 field of
954: view as dense structures were temporarily highlighted as they came in
955: close proximity to the Thomson sphere. These results vividly illustrate
956: the effects of CME propagation viewed at large elongation pointed out by
957: \citet{Vourlidas:2006}.
958:
959: An aspect of the simulation that can be improved upon is the speed of
960: the CME, which is a factor of two too fast inside of $5\,\RS$, and does
961: not recover the measured velocity until $20\,\RS$.
962: We conclude that most of the errors in CME speed originate from
963: the {\it ad hoc} initiation with a flux rope in a state of force
964: imbalance. However, the expansion of the flux rope, in the realistic
965: 3D coronal model, is remarkable in its ability to reproduce the
966: appearance of the CME in Thomson scattered white light.
967: This result suggests that much of the density structure of the
968: CME is determined by the plasma distribution in the corona
969: surrounding the active region.
970:
971: Future models of CME initiation will be improved by the use
972: vector magnetogram data rather than just fitting flux ropes to
973: the observed line-of-sight component of the field. For this event,
974: vector magnetograms clearly show that the magnetic field of AR 10486
975: is very highly sheared with the field running nearly parallel
976: to the neutral line from which the CMEs erupt \citep[]{Liu:2006}.
977: The evolution of magnetic shear is made manifest by observations
978: of photospheric proper motions, which show strong shear flows along
979: the magnetic neutral line prior to CMEs \citep[]{Yang:2004, Deng:2006}.
980: These observations strongly suggest that the magnetic shear is ultimately
981: driving these CMEs. A physical explanation and simulation of such shear
982: flows was first provided respectively by \citet{Manchester:2000} and
983: \citet{Manchester:2001}, which shows
984: that the flows are driven by the Lorentz force that occurs as the
985: magnetic field emerges in a stratified atmosphere. Furthermore,
986: these Lorentz-force-driven flows may persist until the magnetic field
987: becomes so highly sheared that there is a loss of equilibrium producing
988: eruptions that can drive CMEs \citet{Manchester:2003, Manchester:2004c}.
989: The need to resolve the photospheric pressure scale height has limited
990: these simulations to Cartesian domains. Currently, we are adressing
991: the challenge to include this self-consistent shearing mechanism
992: in a global model of CME initiation that is guided by vector magnetic
993: field observations.
994:
995:
996: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
997: \acknowledgments
998: This work has been supported in part by NASA AISRP grant NNG04GP89G,
999: NASA STEREO grant NAS5-3131,
1000: NSF ITR project ATM-0325332, and by DoD MURI grant F49620-01-1-0359.
1001: W. Manchester and M. Opher are thankful for support provided by
1002: LWS grant NNX06AC36G. G. To\'th has been partially supported by
1003: the Hungarian Science Foundation (OTKA, grant No.~T047042).
1004: We acknowledge the use of data from SOHO C2 and C3 coronagraphs.
1005: We gratefully acknowledge the supercomputing resources provided by NASA's
1006: Columbia system under award SMD1-Dec04-0099.
1007: (OTKA, grant No.~T047042).
1008:
1009: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1010:
1011: %\bibliography{tig}
1012:
1013: \clearpage
1014:
1015: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1016:
1017: \bibitem[Amari et al.(2003)] {Amari:2003} Amari, T., Luciani, J.~F., Aly, J.~J., Mikic, Z., \& Linker, J. 2003, \apj , 585, 1073
1018:
1019: \bibitem[Billings(1966)] {Billings:1966} Billings, D. W., 1966, A guide to the
1020: solar corona, Academic Press, San Diego, Calif.
1021:
1022: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(2007)] {Cohen:2007a} Cohen, O., Sokolov, I.~V., Roussev, I.~I., Lugaz, N., Manchester, W.~B., Gombosi, T.~I. \& Arge, C.~N. 2007, JASTP, {\it in press}
1023:
1024: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(2007)] {Cohen:2007b} Cohen, O., Sokolov, I.~V., Roussev, I.~I., Arge, C.~N., Manchester, W.~B., Gombosi, T.~I., Frazin, R.~A., Park, H., Butala, M.~D., Kamalabadi, F., \& Velli, M. 2007, \apj, 654, L163
1025:
1026: \bibitem[Deng et al.(2006)] {Deng:2006} Deng, N., Xu, Y., Yang, G., Cao, W., Liu, C., Rimmele, R., Wang, H., \& Denker, C. 2006, \apj, 644, 1278
1027:
1028: \bibitem[Dryer et al.(2004)] {Dryer:2004} Dryer, M., Smith, Z., Fry, C.~D., Sun, W., Deehr, C.~S. \& Akasofu, S.-I. 2004, Space Weather, 2, S09001, doi:10.1029/2004SW000087
1029:
1030: \bibitem[Gombosi et al.(2001)] {Gombosi:2001} Gombosi, T.~I., T\'oth, G., De Zeeuw, D.~L., Hansen, K., Kabin, K., \& Powell, K.~G. 2001, JCP, 177, 176
1031:
1032: \bibitem[Groth et al.(2000)] {Groth:2000} Groth, C.~P.~T., De Zeeuw, D.~L., Gombosi, T.~I. \& Powell, K.~G. 2000, JGR, 105, 25053
1033:
1034: \bibitem[Howard et al.(2007)] {Howard:2007} Howard, R.~A. et al. 2007, Space Sci. Rev. 105, 25053
1035:
1036: \bibitem[Intriligator et al.(2005)] {Intriligator:2005} Intriligator, D.~S., Sun, W., Dryer, M., Fry, C.~D., Deehr, C., \& Intriligator, J. 2005, JGR, 110, A09S10, doi:10.1029/2004JA010939
1037:
1038: \bibitem[Jacobs et al.(2007)] {Jacobs:2007} Jacobs, C., van der Holst, B., \& Poedts, S. 2007, A\&A, 470, 359, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077305
1039:
1040: \bibitem[Jackson et al.(2006)] {Jackson:2006} Jackson, B.~V., Buffington, A., Hick, P.~P., Wang, X., \& Webb, D. 2006, JGR, 111, A04S91, doi10.1029/2004JA010942
1041:
1042: \bibitem[Krall et al.(2006)] {Krall:2006} Krall, J., Yurchyshyn, V.~B., Slinker, S., Skoug, R.~M., \& Chen, J. 2006, \apj, 642, 541
1043:
1044: \bibitem[Koutchmy \& Lamy(1985)] {Koutchmy:1985} Koutchmy, S., \& Lamy, P. L. 1985, Properties and Interactions of Interplanetary Dust, ed. R. H. Giese \& P. L. Lamy (Dordrecht: Reidel), 63
1045:
1046: \bibitem[Liu et al.(2005)] {Liu:2005} Liu, C., Deng, N., Liu, Y., Falconer, D., Goode, P., Denker, C., \& Wang, H. 2005, \apj 622, 722
1047:
1048: \bibitem[Liu \& Hayashi(2006)] {Liu:2006} Liu, Y., \& Hayashi, K. 2006, \apj 640, 1135
1049:
1050: \bibitem[Lugaz et al.(2005)] {Lugaz:2005} Lugaz, L., Manchester IV, W.~B., \& Gombosi, T. 2005, \apj 627, 1019
1051:
1052: \bibitem[Lugaz et al.(2007)] {Lugaz:2007} Lugaz, L., Manchester IV, W.~B., Roussev, I.~I., T\'oth, G., \& Gombosi, T. 2007, \apj 659, 788
1053:
1054: \bibitem[Luhmann et al.(2004)] {Luhmann:2004} Luhmann, J. G., Solomon, S. C., Linker, J. A., Lyon, J. G., Mikic, Z., Odstrcil, D., Wang, W., \& Wiltberger, M. 2004, JATP, 66, 1243
1055:
1056: \bibitem[Manchester \& Low(2000)]{Manchester:2000} Manchester, IV,~W.
1057: \& Low, B.~C. 2001, Phys. of Plasmas, 7, 1263
1058:
1059: \bibitem[Manchester(2001)]{Manchester:2001} Manchester, IV,~W. 2001,
1060: \apj, 547, 503
1061:
1062: \bibitem[Manchester(2003)]{Manchester:2003} Manchester, IV,~W. 2003, \jgr, 108, 1162, doi:10.1029/2002JA009252
1063:
1064: \bibitem[Manchester et al.(2004a)] {Manchester:2004a} Manchester, W.~B., IV,
1065: Gombosi, T.~I., Roussev, I., DeZeeuw, D.~L., Sokolov, I.~V., Powell, K.~G.,
1066: T\'oth, G. \& Opher, M. 2004, JGR, 109, A01102, doi:10.1029/2002JA009672
1067:
1068: \bibitem[Manchester et al.(2004b)] {Manchester:2004b} Manchester, W.~B., IV,
1069: Gombosi, T.~I., Ridley, A.~J., Roussev, I., DeZeeuw, D.~L., Sokolov, I.~V.,
1070: Powell, K.~G., \& T\'oth, G. 2004, JGR, 109, A02107, doi:10.1029/2003JA010150
1071:
1072: \bibitem[Manchester et al.(2004c)]{Manchester:2004c} Manchester, IV,~W.,
1073: Gombosi, T., DeZeeuw, D., \& Fan, Y. 2004, \apj, 610, 588
1074:
1075: \bibitem[Mancuso et al.(2002)] {Mancuso:2002} Mancuso, S., Raymond, J.~C., Kohl, J., Ko, Y.-K., Uzzo, M., \& Wu, R. 2002, A\&A, 383, 267
1076:
1077: \bibitem[Odstrcil (2003)] {Odstrcil:2003} Odstrcil, D. 2003, Adv. Space Res., 32, 497
1078:
1079: \bibitem[Odstrcil et al.(2005)] {Odstrcil:2005} Odstrcil, D., Pizzo, V.~J., \& Arge, C.~N. 2005, JGR, 110, A02106, doi:10.1029/2004JA010745
1080:
1081: \bibitem[Powell et al.(1999)] {Powell:1999} Powell, K.~G., Roe, P.~L., Linde, T.~J., Gombosi, T.~I.,\& De Zeeuw, D.~L. 1999, JCP, 154, 284
1082:
1083: \bibitem[Raymond et al.(2000)] {Raymond:2000} Raymond, J. C., Thompson, B.~J., St. Cyr, O.~C., Gopalswamy, N., Kahler, S., Kaiser, M., Lara, A., Ciaravella, A., Romoli, M., \& O\'Neal, R. 2000, GRL, 1439.
1084:
1085: \bibitem[Riley et al.(2002)] {Riley:2002} Riley P., Linker, J.~A., Miki\'c, Z., Odstrcil, D., Pizzo, V.~J., \& Webb, D.~F. 2002, ApJ 578, 972
1086:
1087: \bibitem[Roussev et al.(2003a)] {Roussev:2003a} Roussev I.~I., Forbes, T.~G., Gombosi, T.~I. Sokolov, I.~V., De Zeeuw, D.~L., \& Birn, J., 2003, ApJ 588, L457
1088:
1089: \bibitem[Roussev et al.(2003b)] {Roussev:2003b} Roussev I.~I., Gombosi, T.~I. Sokolov, I.~V., Velli, M., Manchester, W., De Zeeuw, D.~L., Liewer, P., \& T\'oth, G., 2003, ApJ 595, L57
1090:
1091: \bibitem[Saito et al.(1977)] {Saito:1977} Saito, K., Poland, A.~I., \& Munro, R. 1977, Solar Phys., 55, 121
1092:
1093: \bibitem[Skoug et al.(2004)] {Skoug:2004} Skoug, R.~M., Gosling, J.~T., Steinberg, J.~T., McComas, D.~J., Smith, C.~W., Ness, N.~F., Hu, Q., \& Burlaga, L.~F. 2004, JGR, 109, A09102
1094:
1095: \bibitem[Sime \& Hundhausen(1987)] {Sime:1987} Sime, D. G. \& Hundhausen, A.~J., 1987, JGR, 92, 1049.
1096:
1097: \bibitem[Su et al.(2006)] {Su:2006} Su, Y.~N., Golub, L., Van Ballegooijen, A.~A., \& Gros, M. 2006, Sol. Phys., 236, 325
1098:
1099: \bibitem[Titov \& D\'emoulin(1999)]{Titov:1999} Titov, V.~S., \& D\'emloulin, P. 1999, A\&A, 351, 701
1100:
1101: \bibitem[Tokumaru et al.(2007)]{Tokumaru:2007} Tokumaru, M., Kojima, M., Fujiki, K., Yamashita, M., \& Jackson, B. 2007, JGR, 112, A05106, doi:10.1029/2006JA012043
1102:
1103: \bibitem[T\'oth et al.(2005)]{Toth:2005} Toth, G., et al. 2005, JGR, 110, A12226, doi10.1029/2005JA011126
1104:
1105: \bibitem[T\'oth et al.(2006)]{Toth:2006} Toth, G., De Zeeuw, D.~L., Gombosi, T.~I., \& Powell, K. 2006, JCP, 217, 722
1106:
1107: \bibitem[T\'oth et al.(2007)]{Toth:2007} Toth, G., De Zeeuw, D., Gombosi, T., Manchester IV, W., Ridely, A., Sokolov, I., Roussev, I. 2007, Space Weather, 5, S06003
1108:
1109: \bibitem[Usmanov \& Dryer(1995)] {Usmanov:1995} Usmanov, A. V., \& Dryer, M. 1995, Sol Phys., 159, 347
1110:
1111: \bibitem[Usmanov et al.(2000)] {Usmanov:2000} Usmanov, A. V., Goldstein, M.~L., Besser, B.~P., \& Fritzer, J.~M. 2000, JGR, 105, 12675
1112:
1113: \bibitem[Vourlidas et al.(2000)]{Vourlidas:2000} Vourlidas, A., Subramanian, Dere, K.~P., \& Howard, R.~A. 2000, \apj , 534, 456
1114:
1115: \bibitem[Vourlidas et al.(2003)]{Vourlidas:2003} Vourlidas, A., Wu, S.~T., Wang, A.~H., Subramanian, P., \& Howard, R.~A. 2003, \apj , 598, 1392
1116:
1117: \bibitem[Vourlidas \& Howard(2006)]{Vourlidas:2006} Vourlidas, A., \& Howard, R.~A. 2006, \apj, 642, 1216
1118:
1119: \bibitem[Wang \& Sheeley(1990)]{Wang:1990} Wang, Y.-M., \& Sheeley, N.~R. 1990, \apj, 355, 726
1120:
1121: \bibitem[Wu et al.(1999)] {Wu:1999} Wu, S. T., Guo, W.~P., Michels, D.~J.,
1122: \& Burlaga L.~F. 1999, JGR, 14789, 1999
1123:
1124: \bibitem[Wu et al.(2005)]{Wu:2005} Wu, C.-C., et al. 2005, JGR, 110, A09S17, doi:10.1029/2005JA011011
1125:
1126: \bibitem[Yang et al.(2004)] {Yang:2004} Yang, G., Xu, Y., Cao, W., Wang, H., Denker, C., \& Rimmele, T.~R., 2004, /apj, 617, L151
1127:
1128: \bibitem[Zurbuchen(2004)] {Zurbuchen:2004} Zurbuchen, T.~H., Gloeckler, G., Ipavich, F., Raines, J., Smith, C.~W., \& Fisk, L.~A. 2004, GRL, 31, L11805, doi:10.1029/2004GL019461
1129:
1130: \end{thebibliography}
1131:
1132: \end{document}
1133: