1: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
2: %%
3: %% DOCUMENTSTYLE
4: %%
5: %% ILR Comments in on 05/05/2008
6: %%
7: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
8: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
9: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
10: \documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}
11:
12: \newcommand\gsim{\,\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim$}\llap{\raise2pt\hbox{$>$}}\,}
13: \newcommand\lsim{\,\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim$}\llap{\raise2pt\hbox{$<$}}\,}
14: \newcommand\xivec{\mbox{\normalsize\boldmath $\xi$}}
15:
16: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
17: %\usepackage{graphicx}
18: %\usepackage{epsfig}
19: %\usepackage{subfigure}
20: %\usepackage{natbib}
21:
22: \shortauthors{LUGAZ ET AL.}
23: \shorttitle{BRIGHTNESS OF 3-D CMES}
24: %\journalid{ApJ}{May 2008}
25: %\cpright{AA}{2008}
26:
27: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
28: %
29: %% AUTHOR ADDRESSES
30: %
31: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
32: %\authoraddr{N.\ Lugaz, A.\ Vourlidas, I.~I.\ Roussev, C. Jacobs, W.~B.\ Manchester IV, O.\ Cohen
33: %Institute for Astronomy
34: %University of Hawaii
35: %2680 Woodlawn Drive
36: %Honolulu, HI, 96822
37: %(nlugaz@ifa.hawaii.edu)}
38:
39:
40: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
41: %
42: %% NUMBERING YOUR SECTIONS
43: %
44: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
45:
46: %\setcounter{page}{1}
47:
48: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
49: %%
50: %% \BEGIN{DOCUMENT} and FRONT MATTER
51: %%
52: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
53: %\renewcommand{\floatsep}{0.0in}
54: %\renewcommand{\dblfloatsep}{0.00in}
55: %\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.01}
56: %\renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.99}
57: %\renewcommand{\dbltopfraction}{0.99}
58: %\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.99}
59: %\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.99}
60: %\renewcommand{\dblfloatpagefraction}{0.99}
61:
62: \newcommand{\sSun}{ {\scriptscriptstyle{\rm \odot}} }
63:
64: \begin{document}
65:
66: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
67:
68: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
69: %
70: %% TITLE
71: %
72: %% ------------------------------------------------------ %%
73:
74: \title{THE BRIGHTNESS OF DENSITY STRUCTURES AT LARGE SOLAR ELONGATION ANGLES:\\
75: WHAT IS BEING OBSERVED BY STEREO/SECCHI? }
76: \author{N.\ Lugaz \altaffilmark{1}, A.\ Vourlidas \altaffilmark{2}, I.~I.\ Roussev \altaffilmark{1}, C.\ Jacobs \altaffilmark{3}, W.~B.\ Manchester, IV \altaffilmark{4}, O.\ Cohen \altaffilmark{4}}
77: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680 Woodlawn Dr., Honolulu, HI 96822; nlugaz@ifa.hawaii.edu, iroussev@ifa.hawaii.edu}
78: \altaffiltext{2}{Code 7663, Naval Research Laboratory, Washigton, DC 20375; vourlidas@nrl.navy.mil}
79: \altaffiltext{3}{Centrum voor Plasma Astrofysica, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200B bus 2400, 3001 Leuven, Belgium ; carla.jacobs@wis.kuleuven.be}
80: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of AOSS, University of Michigan, 2455 Hayward St., Ann Arbor, MI 48198; chipm@umich.edu;oferc@umich.edu}
81: \submitted{Received 2008 May 23; accepted 2008 July 31}
82: \journalinfo{Astrophysical Journal Letters, unedited preprint}
83:
84: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
85: %
86: % ABSTRACT
87: %
88: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%
89:
90: \begin{abstract}
91:
92: We discuss features of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) that are specific to heliospheric observations at large elongation angles.
93: Our analysis is focused on a series of two eruptions that occurred on 2007 January 24-25, which were tracked
94: by the Heliospheric Imagers (HIs) onboard STEREO. Using a three-dimensional (3-D) magneto-hydrodynamic simulation of these
95: ejections with the Space Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF), we illustrate how the combination of the 3-D nature of CMEs, solar
96: rotation, and geometry associated with the Thomson sphere results in complex effects in the brightness observed by the HIs.
97: Our results demonstrate that these effects make any in-depth analysis of CME observations without 3-D simulations challenging.
98: In particular, the association of bright features seen by the HIs with fronts of CME-driven shocks is far from trivial. In this Letter, we
99: argue that, on 2007 January 26, the HIs observed not only two CMEs, but also a dense corotating stream compressed by the CME-driven
100: shocks.
101:
102: \end{abstract}
103: \keywords{scattering --- MHD --- Sun: corona --- Sun: coronal mass ejections (CMEs)}
104:
105: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
106: \section{Introduction} \label{intro}
107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
108:
109: Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs), one of the most extreme events in the solar system, have been studied extensively for over three decades now
110: \citep[see reviews by][]{Schwenn:2006,Roussev:2006}. Until the launches of the {\it Solar Mass Ejection Imager (SMEI)} \citep[]{Eyles:2000} and the {\it Solar Terrestrial
111: Relations Observatory (STEREO)} \citep[]{Kaiser:2008} in 2003 and 2006, respectively, continuous observations of CMEs were made by the\textit{ SoHO\/}/LASCO coronagraphs
112: out to a radial distance from the Sun of 32~$R_\sSun$.
113:
114: The Heliospheric Imagers (HI-1 and HI-2, or collectively HIs)
115: \citep[]{Harrison:2005}, part of the {\it Sun-Earth Connection Coronal
116: and Heliospheric Investigation (SECCHI)} suite onboard STEREO
117: \citep[]{Howard:2008}, enable the tracking of CMEs up to elongation
118: angles (i.e. angular distance from the Sun) of 90$^\circ$.
119: These instruments observe the photospheric
120: light scattered by free electrons in the solar corona and heliosphere
121: \citep[Thomson scattering, e.g. see][]{Minnaert:1930}. The
122: scattering strongly depends on the position of the observer relative to the radial direction of the observed electron. The scattering is maximized, along a given line of sight (LOS), at the point of closest approach to the Sun; namely, when the LOS is normal to the radial direction of the electron. The locus of these points for all possible LOS forms a sphere, called the Thomson sphere (TS) by \citet{Vourlidas:2006}, whose center is the halfway point between
123: the Sun and the observer and whose diameter is equal to the Sun-observer distance. \citet{Jackson:1985} applied this concept to zodiacal photometric observations made by Helios at
124: heliospheric distances as close as 0.31~AU. Recently,
125: \citet{Vourlidas:2006} examined the influence of the TS for the analyses
126: of CMEs observed by the HIs and SMEI by studying the evolution of the brightness of simple structures at large elongation angles.
127:
128: Additionally, the progenitors of Corotating Interaction Regions
129: (CIRs), which are dense streams associated with the interaction of a
130: fast stream of the solar wind originating from a
131: coronal hole with the slow solar wind, have been imaged out to Earth's orbit
132: by the HIs \citep[]{Sheeley:2008b}. \citet{Sheeley:2008a} and
133: \citet{Rouillard:2008} have described how the elongation versus time
134: tracks of the dense streams show apparent accelerations/decelerations
135: depending on the distance of the structures from the observer. These
136: studies suggest the need for a revision of the standard paradigm of
137: tracking structures in the corona to adapt it to density structures
138: propagating in the inner heliosphere. However, these revisions alone
139: are not sufficient to understand in detail the evolution of CMEs as
140: they propagate in the HIs' FOVs. CMEs are intrinsically 3-D density
141: structures which, compared to CIRs, have a much larger and varying width
142: and can be rather asymmetric. The visibility of CME structures is, therefore,
143: subject to geometric and Thomson scattering effects that may be hard
144: to distinguish from evolution or propagation effects. To make
145: progress, fully 3-D numerical simulations of CME evolution in the
146: heliosphere associated with synthetic LOS capabilities are important \citep[]{Odstrcil:2005,
147: Lugaz:2005,Aschwanden:2006, Sun:2008}.
148:
149:
150: \citet{Manchester:2008} studied the evolution of CME brightness in the
151: HI-2's FOV and predicted two features due to the effects of the TS:
152: (i) the apparent deceleration (called ``stall'' by the authors) of a
153: CME front observed in HI-2 (similar to CIR observations by STEREO-A)
154: and, (ii) the appearance of a ``second'' front due to multiple
155: crossings of the TS by the CME. However, their study was for an
156: extremely dense and fast CME (part of the Halloween storm); this
157: causes the solar wind background to be less important than for slower
158: CMEs. In this Letter, we go further by analyzing a complex series of events, one
159: actually observed by STEREO: the 2007 January 24-25 CMEs interacting in
160: the heliosphere. These were the first major CMEs detected by the HIs, and
161: they have been described by \citet{Harrison:2008}. The
162: 3-D modeling %of these events
163: has been done using the Space Weather
164: Modeling Framework (SWMF) %developed at the University of Michigan
165: (\S \ref{Obs}). Here, we focus on the influence of the TS in
166: determining what density structures have been observed, focusing on
167: HI-2 observations on 2007 January 26 (\S \ref{LOS}).
168: The final conclusions of this investigation are drawn
169: in \S \ref{conclusions}.
170:
171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
172: \section{THE SOLAR ERUPTIONS OF 2007 JANUARY 24-25} \label{Obs}
173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
174:
175:
176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
177: \begin{figure*}[ht*]
178: \begin{center}
179: {\includegraphics*[width=16cm]{f1.ps}}
180: \caption{{\it Left}: SECCHI HI-2A running difference image at 0600UT on 2007 January 26. {\it Middle}: Simulated SECCHI HI-2A running difference image at 0600UT on 2007 January 26. The dots correspond to elongations of 30$^\circ$, 23$^\circ$ and 20$^\circ$ from left to right. {\it Right}: Wind observations during this time period showing a dense stream hitting the Earth on 2007 Feb 5, corresponding to the structure marked with the pink dot.}
181: \end{center}
182: \label{fig:6UT}
183: \end{figure*}
184: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
185:
186: \subsection{Coronagraphic and Heliospheric Observations}\label{LASCO}
187: On 2007 January 24, at 1403UT, COR1 (FOV: 1.5-4~$R_\sSun$) observed an
188: eruption from active region (AR) 940, which was behind the eastern
189: limb of the Sun at the time. At 0643UT on January 25, COR1 observed a
190: second eruption from the same AR. These two eruptions were also detected by SoHO/LASCO.
191: Based on time-height profiles in
192: the LASCO FOVs, they had a projected speed between 600 and
193: 750~km~s$^{-1}$ for the first CME, and between 1,000 and
194: 1,350~km~s$^{-1}$ for the second one, depending on the position angle
195: (PA, angle from the Solar North towards Solar East) of the measurement. Using these speeds derived from near-Sun observations and
196: assuming that there was no deceleration, the two CMEs were
197: expected to interact on January 25 at 2030UT near PA 80$^\circ$ at a
198: radial distance of 97~$R_\sSun$ (0.45~AU). Further assuming that both
199: CMEs occurred exactly on the east limb, the corresponding elongation
200: angle would be 25$^\circ$ (in HI-2's FOV).
201:
202: At the time of the ejections, being in the commissioning phase of the mission,
203: STEREO-A was rolled by 22.4$^\circ$ from
204: the solar north, which resulted in HI-1 and HI-2 imaging higher-latitude
205: regions than during the normal phase of the mission \citep[]{Harrison:2008}.
206: The spacecraft was separated by approximately 0.4$^\circ$
207: from Earth and was at a radial distance of 0.97~AU from the Sun. The
208: leading ejection was first detected in HI-1's FOV at 1801UT on January 24
209: at 4.4$^\circ$ elongation and was tracked until 12.1$^\circ$ at 0401UT
210: on January 25. At that time, there was a SECCHI data gap for 20 hours.
211: Multiple fronts were detected in HI-2 on January 26: the brightest one
212: propagated from 24.7$^\circ$ at 0201UT to 32.5$^\circ$ at 1801UT.
213: \citet{Howard:2008} noted the presence of ``forerunner'' structures
214: (at 42$^\circ$ at 1801UT). Even after accounting for the
215: deceleration of the CMEs, these observations are likely to have
216: covered the interaction of the two successive CMEs. The ability of the HIs to
217: detect CME mergers in the heliosphere has been predicted by
218: \citet{Lugaz:2008}. The difficulty, however, is to associate the structures observed in HI-2 to the individual ejections.
219:
220: \subsection{Simulation Set-up}\label{SWMF}
221: The 3-D simulation of the two ejections was done using the SWMF \citep[]{Toth:2005}.
222: The solar corona domain of SWMF is
223: resolved with 40,489 blocks of $4^3$ cells each, ranging in size from
224: 1/40~$R_\sSun$ at the inner boundary to 0.75~$R_\sSun$ at the outer
225: boundary. The inner heliosphere domain of SWMF is resolved with
226: 16,626 blocks of $8^3$ cells each, ranging in size from 3.44 to
227: 0.215~$R_\sSun$. In both domains, the heliospheric current sheet is refined
228: in order to better capture the density gradients there.
229: The solar wind and coronal magnetic field are reproduced using
230: the model developed by \citet{Cohen:2007}. This model makes use of
231: solar magnetogram data and the Wang-Sheeley-Arge (WSA) model
232: \citep[]{Wang:1990, Arge:2000} for the asymptotic solar wind speed at 1~AU. The
233: solar magnetic field is reconstructed from a Legendre polynomial
234: expansion of order 49 based on {\it NSO/SOLIS} magnetogram data.
235: %in a manner described as follows.
236: %The initial coronal magnetic field is obtained through the potential field source surface model, with the inner boundary of the model moved to $1.06~R_{\sSun}$ in order to decrease
237: %the magnetic field strength (and the associated Alfv{\'e}nic speed) in the active region. This initial state is then let evolve to a steady state constrained by the WSA speed,
238: %so that the steady-state magnetic field is not potential anymore.
239:
240: To model the CMEs, we use a semi-circular flux rope prescribed
241: by a given total toroidal current, as in the models by
242: \citet{Titov:1999} and \citet{Roussev:2003b}. A more complete
243: description of the implementation of this model can be found
244: in \citet{Lugaz:2007}. This flux rope solution, once superimposed
245: on the background magnetic field, leads to immediate eruption
246: because of force imbalance %with the ambient magnetic field.
247: The flux rope parameters are chosen such that there is an agreement with
248: the observed values of the speed of the eruptions in the corona.
249: % Note that this model is not aimed at reproducing the
250: %complexity of the flux rope's formation and the shearing motion at the
251: %surface of the Sun as in the model of \citet{Roussev:2007}.
252: Our main goal here is to study the interaction of the two ejections with the
253: background solar wind and with each other. %The synthetic
254: %line-of-sight routine was introduced in the SWMF for LASCO
255: %coronagraphs \citep[]{Manchester:2004}, and it was modified by
256: %\citet{Lugaz:2005} to simulate wide-angle observations by HIs.
257:
258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
259: \section{Two CMEs and a Dense Stream} \label{LOS}
260: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
261:
262: \subsection{Goal of the Study}
263: The STEREO spacecraft have great potential to enhance the
264: quality of space weather predictions, because density structures can be tracked on their way to Earth
265: beyond LASCO FOV \citep[]{Kaiser:2008}.
266: However, one of the difficulties associated with the interpretation of
267: SECCHI/HIs observations stems from the need to distinguish between
268: different types of density structures in the heliosphere.
269: During the first year of the mission, observations focused on CIRs and
270: CMEs, which have been easily observed at large elongation angles.
271: There has not been any reported observation of CMEs interacting
272: with CIRs in the HI-2's FOV yet. This relative simplicity of HI-2's
273: observations should change as we approach the more active phase of
274: solar cycle 24. Effects such as those discussed by
275: \citet{Vourlidas:2006}, \citet{Manchester:2008} and
276: \citet{Rouillard:2008} should make the direct association of bright
277: fronts observed by the HIs with ejections observed by coronagraphs
278: more complicated.
279: In this section, we show how the knowledge gained from the careful
280: analysis of 3-D simulations can significantly improve the interpretation
281: of HI observations.
282:
283: On January 26, HI-2 onboard STEREO-A observed a number of structures
284: associated with the CMEs of 2007 January 24-25 (Fig.~1, left panel).
285: Here, we focus on the observations and model results at 0600UT on January 26
286: to try to determine the origin of these structures. This particular time was chosen because three
287: distinct structures were clearly visible in HI2's image. In this analysis, we analyze running difference images,
288: the most common type of imaging used to track faint structures far from the Sun.
289:
290: \subsection{The Two Ejections}
291:
292: In the right panel of Fig.~2, we show a two-dimensional cut of the simulation results as seen from the solar north pole (showing the density scaled by 1/R$^2$)
293: at 0600UT on January 26 with the schematic of the observations.
294: As can be seen in this image, the two CMEs have partially merged,
295: but there are still two distinct fronts in the vicinity of the Sun-Earth line.
296: In our synthetic HI-2 image (Fig.~1, middle panel), there are two bright structures (blue and green
297: dots) associated with these two distinct ejections. The second front (green dot)
298: is brighter because it corresponds to material swept up with the first
299: ejection which has been additionally compressed by the second
300: ejection. This enhanced density is often observed
301: in sheaths associated with interacting CMEs \citep[]{Farrugia:2006, Lugaz:2008}.
302:
303: The protruding front in the southern half of the synthetic HI-2 image
304: (also present, dimly, in the real HI-2 image) is also associated with
305: the leading edge of the first CME (blue dot).
306: As seen in halo CMEs near solar minimum, the leading edge propagates
307: faster in high-latitude regions, where the
308: Alfv{\'e}nic speed is higher and the density is lower than near the current sheet.
309: Because STEREO-A was rolled by 22.4$^\circ$ from the solar north,
310: the center of the LOS images %already
311: corresponds to mid-latitude regions.
312: %The second front appears more symmetric
313: %because the Alfv{\'e}nic speed and the density have been homogenized by the propagation
314: %of the first CME. In short, t
315: This roll enhances the apparent protrusion
316: of the first front.
317: %and the flatness of the second one.
318:
319: Following this analysis, we associate the brightest structure in the real HI-2
320: image %(left panel of Fig. 1)
321: with the CME on 2007 January 25, which is in the process of overtaking the previous CME. We believe
322: that the fainter structure ahead corresponds to the first CME. We
323: will now focus on the origin of the third structure marked with a pink dot in the middle panel Fig.~1.
324:
325: \subsection{The Dense Stream (DS)}
326:
327: In the left panel of Fig.~2, we show the running difference of the
328: 3-D density on the Thomson sphere and the plane corresponding to the center of the LOS image (PA 67.6$^\circ$). This is an approximate way
329: to visualize the results of the simulation in a manner similar to the HI2 images.
330: The three structures are marked with three LOS rays which correspond to the dots of the same color in the middle panel of Fig.~1.
331: Note that the Thomson scattering decreases quite slowly away from the TS \citep[]{Vourlidas:2006}. Therefore, density enhancements away from
332: the TS should be considered, but are hard to visualize (see online animation).
333: Looking at the simulation result, we have found that the pink dot is associated with a density increase
334: on the TS distinct from the two CME fronts, but the ray also
335: intersects the second CME.
336: After careful analysis of the simulation results, we have determined that this distinct density increase is likely associated with
337: a dense corotating stream (DS), which has been compressed by the two CMEs
338: (see Fig.~2, right).
339:
340: According to our simulation, the DS was present in the heliosphere prior to the CME passage (``DS'' in the right panel of Fig.~2), with a
341: density about 50$\%$ larger than the average density at the same
342: heliospheric distance. The simulation shows how the DS is
343: compressed by the two CMEs (right panel of Fig.~2), and due to co-rotation it enters the
344: FOV of HI-2 in January 26.
345: The presence of this density enhancement prior to the passage of the CMEs and the small angular span of this denser region
346: clearly rules out the possibility that this increased density is associated with the CMEs.
347: Our results indicate that, in the absence of
348: any CMEs, the Earth would have passed a region of enhanced density
349: between 0900UT on Feb 4 and 0100UT on Feb 6 (peak density at 1700~UT
350: on Feb 4). In reality, a DS was observed at the Earth on
351: Feb 5, as seen in the Wind data shown on the right panel of Fig.~1.
352: We should note that our simulation resolution at the Earth's location
353: is 3.44~$R_\sSun$, which corresponds to about 40
354: minutes for the solar wind data. Also, the timing given here is based
355: on the steady-state solution using synoptic (27-day) magnetograms. We
356: believe these two effects explain in part the earlier arrival of the
357: DS at Earth as predicted from our solar wind model.
358: This leads us to believe that the DS is real and is associated with the density enhancement on the TS
359: at the location of the third structure. However, as noted above, the pink ray intersects
360: not only this DS but also the second CME.
361:
362: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
363: \begin{figure*}[ht*]
364: \begin{center}
365: \includegraphics*[width=16.5cm]{f2.ps}
366: \caption{{\it Left}: 3-D view of the CMEs at 0600UT on 2007 January 26 showing the density increase (dN) with respect to 0400UT. The silver and green spheres depict the Sun and STEREO-A.
367: The largest sphere is the TS. The three rays illustrate the LOS integration and correspond to the dots of the same color in the previous Figure. In the online version, the khaki and brown isosurfaces are regions
368: of dN = $\pm 80~cm^{-3}$ respectively.
369: {\it Right}: 2-D cut at 0600UT on January 26 as seen from solar north pole
370: showing the density scaled by 1/R$^2$. The structures corresponding to the two CMEs are indicated with the S1 and S2 arrows.
371: The co-rotating dense stream before (resp. after) being hit by the CME fronts is indicated with the DS (resp. ``compressed DS'') arrow.
372: The Sun, STEREO-A and the TS are represented by the black disk, the green disk and the white circle respectively. The blue line %originating from the STEREO-A position
373: delimits the inner FOV of HI-2A, 20$^\circ$ away from the Sun.}
374: \end{center}
375: \label{fig:DenseStream}
376: \end{figure*}
377:
378: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
379:
380: The analyzed HI-2 LOS image is a running
381: difference; therefore, a dense region along the pink ray will
382: correspond to a bright front at the pink dot only if no dense region
383: was present there in the previous image. In fact, the pink ray also
384: intercepted the CME front in the previous frame, whereas it did not
385: intersect the DS. Hence, the CME front is not expected to contribute
386: to the brightness enhancement in the HI-2 image. Accordingly, we
387: believe that the brightness enhancement, in the running difference
388: image, is due to the DS, which was compressed by the two CMEs.
389:
390: To summarize, there are three structures seen in the synthetic
391: LOS image: one corresponding to the leading CME having not
392: yet been overtaken by the following CME on the TS (blue dot); a second
393: one corresponding to the following CME, or the merged CMEs away from
394: the TS (green dot); and a third one resulting from the compression of
395: the co-rotating DS by the CMEs (pink dot).
396:
397: Careful analyses of HI-2 images with the support of 3-D simulations such as the one presented here should help
398: develop a better understanding of which density structures at which position are tracked by STEREO HIs. This, in turn, will
399: help increase the accuracy of space weather predictions based on STEREO observations.
400:
401:
402: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
403: \section{DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS}\label{conclusions}
404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
405: In this Letter, we have discussed some apparent difficulties associated
406: with the interpretation of STEREO HI-2 images, especially when there
407: are multiple density structures in the field-of-view of the
408: instrument. By means of a fully 3-D MHD simulation of the 2007 January 24-25
409: ejections, we have been able to associate the observed HI-2 features with
410: features seen in the synthetic HI-2 images. We have found that they
411: correspond to the front associated with the leading CME, the front
412: associated with the newly merged CMEs, and a co-rotating DS
413: compressed by the two ejections. We believe that the observations could have been
414: misinterpreted without the aid of a numerical simulation. This is because the DS appearance and evolution
415: could have been mistaken for those of a CME. This work
416: emphasizes the importance of carrying out 3-D simulations of CME
417: interaction with a structured solar wind in interpreting STEREO
418: observations.
419: It should also be remembered that, without carefully considering the effect of subtracting consecutive images,
420: one might not be certain with which structure (and which part of a structure) a bright front is associated. This is because
421: most observational rays intersect multiple density structures in the heliosphere.
422: In future related studies, we will present a detailed comparison of the simulated
423: and real SECCHI images for the 2007/01/24-25 events, thus filling the 20-hour SECCHI data gap.
424:
425: \acknowledgments
426: The simulation reported here was carried out on a dedicated cluster of the solar group at
427: the IfA. The research for this
428: manuscript was supported by NSF grants ATM0639335 and ATM0819653 and NASA grants
429: NNX07AC13G and NNX08AQ16G. W.~M. was
430: supported by NASA grant NNX06AC36G. We would like to thank the reviewer for helping us improve and clarify this Letter.
431: The SECCHI data is produced by an
432: international consortium of the NRL, LMSAL and NASA GSFC (USA), RAL
433: and U. Bham (UK), MPS (Germany), CSL (Belgium), IOTA and IAS (France).
434: %Naval Research Laboratory, Lockheed
435: %Martin Solar and Astrophysics Lab, and NASA Goddard Space Flight
436: %Center (USA), Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, and University of
437: %Birmingham (UK), Max-Planck-Institut f{\"u}r Sonnensystemforschung
438: %(Germany), Centre Spatiale de Liege (Belgium), Institut d'Optique
439: %Th{\'e}orique et Appliqu{\'e}e, and Institut d'Astrophysique
440: %Spatiale (France).
441: %SoHO is a project of international cooperation
442: %between ESA and NASA.
443: SOLIS data were obtained from NSO.
444:
445: \begin{thebibliography}{}
446: \bibitem[Arge \& Pizzo(2000)]{Arge:2000} Arge, C., \& Pizzo, V.\ 2000, \jgr, 105, 10465
447: \bibitem[Aschwanden et al.(2008)]{Aschwanden:2006} Aschwanden, M.~J.,
448: et al.\ 2008, Space Science Rev., 136, 565
449: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(2007)]{Cohen:2007} Cohen, O., et al.\ 2007,
450: ApJL, 654, L163
451: \bibitem[Eyles et al.(2000)]{Eyles:2000} Eyles, C. et al.\ 2000, \apj, 217, 319
452: \bibitem[Farrugia et al.(2006)]{Farrugia:2006} Farrugia, C.~J. et al.\ 2006, J. Geophys. Res., 111, 11104
453: %\bibitem[Gopalswamy(2002)]{Gopalswamy:2002} {Gopalswamy}, N. et al., 2002, ApJ, 572, L103-107
454: \bibitem[Harrison et al.(2005)]{Harrison:2005} Harrison, R.,
455: Davis, C., \& Eyles, C.\ 2005, Adv.\,Space\,Res.,\,36,\,1512
456: \bibitem[Harrison et al.(2008)]{Harrison:2008} Harrison, R., et
457: al.\ 2008, Sol. Phys., 247, 171
458: %\bibitem[Houminer \& Hewish(1972)]{Houminer:1972} Houminer, Z., \& Hewish, A.\ 1972, \planss, 20, 1703
459: \bibitem[Howard et al.(2008)]{Howard:2008} Howard, R.~A. et al.\ 2008, Space Science Rev., 136, 67
460: \bibitem[Jackson \& Leinert(1985)]{Jackson:1985} Jackson, B.~V., \& Leinert, C.\ 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 10759
461: \bibitem[Kaiser et al.(2008)]{Kaiser:2008} Kaiser, M.~L. et al.\ 2008, Space Sci. Rev., 136, 5
462: \bibitem[Lugaz et al.(2005)]{Lugaz:2005} Lugaz, N., Manchester, W.,
463: Gombosi, T.\ 2005, ApJ, 627, 1019
464: \bibitem[Lugaz et al.(2007)]{Lugaz:2007} Lugaz, N.,et al.\ 2007, ApJ, 659, 788
465: \bibitem[Lugaz et al.(2008)]{Lugaz:2008} Lugaz, N. et al.\ 2008, J. of Atm. and Terrest. Phys., 70, 598
466: %\bibitem[Manchester et al.(2004)]{Manchester:2004} Manchester, W.~B. et al.
467: %\ 2004, J. Geophys. Res., 109, 1102
468: \bibitem[Manchester et al.(2008)]{Manchester:2008} Manchester, W.~B. et al.
469: \ 2008, ApJ, 684, Sept. 10, {\it in press}
470: \bibitem[Minnaert(1930)]{Minnaert:1930} Minnaert, M.\ 1930,
471: Zeitschrift fur Astrophysik, 1, 209
472: \bibitem[Odstrcil et al.(2005)]{Odstrcil:2005} Odstrcil,\ D.,\ Pizzo,\
473: V.,\ \&\ Arge,\ C.\ 2005,\ J.\ Geophys.\ Res.,\ 110,\ 2106
474: \bibitem[Rouillard et al.(2008)]{Rouillard:2008} Rouillard, A. et al.\ 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., {\it in press}
475: \bibitem[Roussev et al.(2003)]{Roussev:2003b} Roussev, I.~I. et al.\ 2003,
476: ApJ, 588, L45
477: \bibitem[Roussev \& Sokolov(2006)]{Roussev:2006} Roussev, I.~I., \& Sokolov, I.~V.\ 2006,
478: ed.~N.~Gopalswamy, R.~Mewaldt, and J.~Torsti, Geophys. Monog. 165, 89, 165, 89
479: \bibitem[Schwenn et al.(2006)]{Schwenn:2006} Schwenn, R., et al. 2006, Space Science Rev., 123, 127
480: \bibitem[Sheeley et al.(2008a)]{Sheeley:2008a} Sheeley, N.~R., et
481: al.\ 2008a, ApJL, 674, L109
482: \bibitem[Sheeley et al.(2008b)]{Sheeley:2008b} Sheeley, N.~R., et
483: al.\ 2008b, ApJ, 675, 853
484: \bibitem[Sun et al.(2008)]{Sun:2008} Sun, W., et al.\ 2008, Space Weather, 6, S03006
485: \bibitem[Titov \& D{\'e}moulin(1999)]{Titov:1999} Titov, V.~S., \& D{\'e}moulin, P.
486: \ 1999, A\&A, 351, 707
487: \bibitem[T{\'o}th et al.(2005)]{Toth:2005} T{\'o}th, G., et al.\
488: 2005, J. Geophys. Res., 110, 12226
489: \bibitem[Vourlidas \& Howard(2006)]{Vourlidas:2006} Vourlidas, A., \& Howard, R.~A.\ 2006, ApJ, 642, 1216
490: \bibitem[Wang \& Sheeley(1990)]{Wang:1990} Wang, Y.-M., \& Sheeley, N.~R., Jr.\ 1990, ApJ, 355, 726
491:
492: \end{thebibliography}
493:
494: \end{document}
495: