1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{/home/wood/aastex/mkfig}
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \title{\bf Comprehensive Observations of a Solar Minimum CME with STEREO}
6:
7: \author{B. E. Wood\altaffilmark{1}, R. A. Howard\altaffilmark{1},
8: S. P. Plunkett\altaffilmark{1}, D. G. Socker\altaffilmark{1}}
9:
10: \altaffiltext{1}{Naval Research Laboratory, Space Sciences Division,
11: Washington, DC 20375; brian.wood@nrl.navy.mil}
12:
13: \begin{abstract}
14:
15: We perform the first kinematic analysis of a CME observed
16: by both imaging and in~situ instruments on board STEREO,
17: namely the SECCHI, PLASTIC, and IMPACT experiments.
18: Launched on 2008 February 4, the CME is tracked
19: continuously from initiation to 1 AU using the SECCHI imagers
20: on both STEREO spacecraft, and is then detected by the PLASTIC and
21: IMPACT particle and field detectors on board STEREO-B. The CME is
22: also detected in~situ by ACE and SOHO/CELIAS at Earth's L1
23: Lagrangian point. The CME hits STEREO-B, ACE, and SOHO on
24: 2008 February 7, but misses STEREO-A entirely. This event provides
25: a good example of just how different the same event can look when viewed from
26: different perspectives. We also demonstrate many ways in which
27: the comprehensive and continuous coverage of this CME by STEREO
28: improves confidence in our assessment of its kinematic behavior, with
29: potential ramifications for space weather forecasting.
30: The observations provide several lines of evidence in favor of the
31: observable part of the CME being narrow in angular extent, a
32: determination crucial for deciding how best to convert observed
33: CME elongation angles from Sun-center to actual Sun-center distances.
34:
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37: \keywords{Sun: activity --- Sun: coronal mass ejections
38: (CMEs) --- solar wind --- interplanetary medium}
39:
40: \section{INTRODUCTION}
41:
42: The {\em Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory} (STEREO) mission
43: is designed to improve our understanding of coronal mass ejections (CMEs)
44: and their interplanetary counterparts ICMEs (``interplanetary CMEs'') in
45: many different ways. Consisting of two spacecraft observing the Sun from
46: very different locations, STEREO simultaneously observes the Sun and
47: interplanetary medium (IPM) from two vantage points, allowing a much
48: better assessment of a CME's true three-dimensional structure from the
49: two-dimensional images. STEREO has the capability of
50: observing CMEs far into the IPM thanks to its two Heliospheric Imagers,
51: HI1 and HI2, which can track CMEs all the way to 1~AU. The only
52: other instrument with comparable capabilities is the Solar Mass
53: Ejection Imager (SMEI) on the {\em Coriolis} spacecraft, which is still
54: in operation \citep{cje03,bvj04,dfw06,tah08}. Finally, the
55: two spacecraft possess particle and field instruments that can study
56: ICME properties in~situ. The ability to continuously follow a CME from
57: the Sun into the IPM actually blurs the distinction between the CME and
58: ICME terms. Since most of this paper will be focused on white-light
59: images of the CME, we will generally use only the CME acronym.
60:
61: \citet{raha08} reported on the first CMEs observed by
62: STEREO that could be continuously tracked into the IPM by HI1 and HI2.
63: They tracked the events over $40^{\circ}$ from the Sun. We extend
64: this work further by presenting observations of a CME that can be tracked
65: all the way to 1~AU, where the event is then detected by particle and
66: field detectors on one of the two spacecraft. It is also detected by
67: the {\em Advanced Composition Explorer} (ACE), and by the Charge, Element,
68: and Isotope Analysis System (CELIAS) on board the {\em Solar and
69: Heliospheric Observatory} (SOHO). Both ACE and SOHO are at Earth's L1
70: Lagrangian point, so the CME's detection there means that it qualifies
71: as an Earth-directed event. This CME is
72: therefore useful for illustrating how STEREO's unique perspective can
73: provide a much better assessment of the kinematics and structure of
74: potentially geoeffective CMEs. This will become more important as we
75: move away from the 2008 solar minimum and strong Earth-directed CMEs
76: become more frequent.
77:
78: \section{THE STEREO INSTRUMENTS}
79:
80: The two STEREO spacecraft were launched on 2006~October~26,
81: one into an orbit slightly inside that of Earth (STEREO-A), which
82: means that it moves ahead of the Earth in its orbit,
83: and one into an orbit slightly outside that of Earth (STEREO-B), which
84: means that it trails behind the Earth. Since launch the
85: separation of the A and B spacecraft has been gradually growing.
86: Figure~1 shows their locations on 2008~February~4,
87: which is the initiation date of the CME of interest here. At this
88: point STEREO A and B had achieved a separation angle of $45.3^{\circ}$
89: relative to the Sun.
90:
91: The two STEREO spacecraft contain identical sets of instruments.
92: The imaging instruments are contained in a package called the
93: Sun-Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation (SECCHI),
94: which will be described in more detail below. There are two
95: in~situ instruments on board, the Plasma and Suprathermal Ion
96: Composition (PLASTIC) instrument \citep{abg08}, and the
97: In-situ Measurements of Particles and CMEs Transients (IMPACT)
98: package \citep{mha08,jgl08}. The former
99: studies the properties of ions in the bulk solar wind, and the latter
100: studies electrons, energetic particles, and magnetic fields in
101: the IPM. Finally, there is a radio wave detector aboard each
102: spacecraft called STEREO/WAVES, or SWAVES \citep{jlb08},
103: but SWAVES did not see any activity relevant to our particular CME.
104:
105: Most of the data presented in this paper will be from the five
106: telescopes that constitute SECCHI, which are fully described by
107: \citet{raho08}. Moving from the Sun outwards, these
108: consist firstly of an Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUVI), which
109: observes the Sun in several extreme ultraviolet bandpasses. There are
110: then two coronagraphs, COR1 and COR2, which observe the white light
111: corona at elongation angles from the Sun of $0.37^{\circ}-1.07^{\circ}$
112: and $0.7^{\circ}-4.2^{\circ}$, respectively. These angles correspond
113: to distances in the plane of the sky of $1.4-4.0$ R$_{\odot}$
114: for COR1 and $2.5-15.6$ R$_{\odot}$ for COR2. Finally, there are
115: the two Heliospheric Imagers, HI1 and HI2, mentioned in \S1, which
116: observe the white light IPM in between the Sun and Earth at
117: elongation angles from the Sun of $3.9^{\circ}-24.1^{\circ}$ and
118: $19^{\circ}-89^{\circ}$, respectively.
119: %These angles correspond to
120: %plane-of-sky distances at 1~AU of $0.07-0.42$~AU and $0.33-1.6$~AU.
121: At these large angles, plane-of-sky distances become very misleading,
122: so we do not quote any here.
123: Figure~1 shows explicitly the overlapping COR2, HI1,
124: and HI2 fields of view for STEREO-A and STEREO-B on 2008~February~4.
125:
126: \section{THE 2008 FEBRUARY 4 CME}
127:
128: \subsection{Imaging the Event}
129:
130: Figures~2--6 provide examples of images of the February~4 event
131: from all five of the SECCHI telescopes. Figure~2 shows sequences
132: of images in two of the four bandpasses monitored by EUVI: the He~II
133: $\lambda$304 bandpass and the Fe~XII $\lambda$195 bandpass.
134: Note that the actual time cadence is 10 minutes in both of these
135: bandpasses, rather than the 30 minute time separation of the chosen
136: images in Figure~2.
137:
138: At about 8:16 UT a prominence is observed to be gradually
139: expanding off the southeast limb of the Sun in the EUVI-A $\lambda$304
140: images. This expansion then accelerates into a full prominence eruption,
141: as a small flare begins at about 8:36 in the He~II and Fe~XII images
142: some distance northwest of the prominence. The flaring site is
143: indicated by an arrow in Figure~2. This is not a strong flare
144: in EUVI, and there is no GOES X-ray event recorded at all at this time,
145: so the flare is apparently too weak to produce sufficient high
146: temperature plasma to yield a GOES detection.
147:
148: Figures~3 and 4 show white-light COR1 and COR2 images of a
149: CME that emerges shortly after the EUVI flare begins. As was the
150: case for EUVI, the actual time cadence is three times faster than
151: implied by the selected images: 10 minutes for COR1 and 30
152: minutes for COR2. The synoptic COR1 and COR2 programs actually involve
153: the acquisition of 3 separate images at three
154: different polarization angles, which we combine into a single
155: total-brightness image for our purposes. [Technically, the COR2
156: cadence is actually 15 minutes, alternating between the acquisition
157: of full polarization triplets, which we use here, and total brightness
158: images computed from polarization doublets combined onboard,
159: which we do not use \citep{raho08}.] The coronagraph images
160: are all displayed in running-difference mode in Figures~3 and 4, where
161: the previous image is subtracted from each image. This
162: is a simple way to subtract static coronal structures and emphasize
163: the dynamic CME material.
164:
165: From the perspective of STEREO-A the CME is first seen by COR1-A
166: off the southeast limb, as expected based on the location of the flare
167: and prominence eruption. However, the strong southern component to
168: the CME motion seen in the COR1-A images in Figure~3 disappears by the
169: time the CME leaves the COR2-A field of view. In the final COR2-A image
170: in Figure~4 the CME is roughly symmetric about the ecliptic plane,
171: in contrast to its COR1-A appearance.
172: \citet{hc04} have noted that near solar minimum, CMEs appear to be
173: deflected towards the ecliptic plane, presumably due to the presence of
174: high speed wind and open magnetic field lines emanating from polar
175: coronal holes. The February~4 CME may be another example of this.
176:
177: The CME's appearance is radically different from the point of view
178: of STEREO-B, illustrating the value of the multiple-viewpoint STEREO
179: mission concept. The EUVI-B flare is only $10^{\circ}$ from disk center,
180: so the expectation is that any CME observed by STEREO-B will be a halo
181: event directed at the spacecraft. However, the COR1-B and COR2-B
182: images show only a rather faint front expanding slowly in a southwesterly
183: direction, though the COR2-B movies do provide hints of expansion at
184: other position angles, meaning that this might qualify as a partial
185: halo CME. It is possible that if the CME was much brighter it might have
186: been a full halo event. It is impressive how much fainter the event is
187: from STEREO-B than from STEREO-A, possibly due to the CME subtending
188: a larger solid angle from STEREO-B's perspective, with some of the CME
189: blocked by the occulter.
190: The visibility of a CME as a function of viewing angle can also
191: be affected by various Thomson scattering effects \citep{mda02,av06}.
192: %This event by itself suggests that
193: %a CME of a given mass is more easily detected if it is a limb event
194: %rather than a halo event directed at the observer. The dependence of
195: %CME brightness and detectability on viewing angle has not been clearly
196: %resolved by SOHO/LASCO data \citep[e.g.,][]{mda02,av06},
197: %but STEREO should be able to address the issue quite easily.
198:
199: Both COR1-A and COR1-B (see Fig.~3) show a CME directed more to the
200: south than would be expected based on the flare site (see Fig.~2), and
201: COR1-B shows more of a westward direction than would be expected
202: considering how close to disk center the flare is from the point of
203: view of STEREO-B. We speculate that perhaps the coronal hole just east
204: of the flare site (see EUVI-B Fe~XII $\lambda$195 images in Fig.~2)
205: plays a role in deflecting the CME into the more southwesterly trajectory
206: seen by STEREO-B. Thus, this CME seems to show evidence for two
207: separate deflections from coronal holes: the initial deflection to
208: the southwest from the low latitude hole adjacent to the flare site,
209: and the more gradual deflection back towards the ecliptic plane seen
210: in COR2-A (see Fig.~4).
211:
212: Figures~5 and 6 show HI1 and HI2 images of the CME as it
213: propagates through the IPM to 1~AU. As was the case for COR1 and
214: COR2, the HI1 and HI2 data are displayed in running difference mode.
215: The time cadence of HI1 and HI2 data acquisition are 40 minutes and
216: 2 hours, respectively.
217:
218: The large fields of view of the HI telescopes
219: and the increasing faintness of CME fronts as they move further from
220: the Sun make subtraction of the stellar background a very important
221: issue. For HI1 we first subtract an average image computed from about
222: 2 days worth of data encompassing the Feb.~4 event. This removes
223: the static F-corona emission, which eliminates the large brightness
224: gradient in the raw HI1 images. We then use a simple median filtering
225: technique to subtract the stars before the running difference subtraction
226: of the previous image is made. Artifacts from some of the brightest
227: stars are still discernible in Figure~5, including vertical streaks due
228: to exposure during the readout of the detector.
229: Median filtering does not work well for the diffuse
230: background produced by the Milky Way, so the Milky Way's presence
231: on the right side of the HI1-B images is still readily apparent.
232: A somewhat more complicated procedure is used for HI2, which
233: involves the shifting of the previous image before it is subtracted to
234: make the running-difference sequence, in an effort to better eliminate
235: the stellar background. This method should be effective for both the
236: diffuse Milky Way and stellar point source background, but median
237: filtering is also used to further improve the stellar subtraction.
238: The HI2 image processing procedure is described in more detail
239: by \citet{nrs08b}.
240:
241: The bright CME front is readily apparent in the HI1-A images, but in
242: HI1-B the CME can only be clearly discerned in the lower left corner of the
243: last two images in Figure~5. This is consistent with expectations from
244: the appearance of the CME in the COR2 data. The situation becomes more
245: complicated in the HI2 field of view (FOV). Figure~6 shows two HI2-A images,
246: and also shows the positions of Earth, SOHO, and STEREO-B in the FOV.
247: Earth and SOHO are behind a trapezoidal occulter, which is used
248: to prevent the image from being contaminated by a very overexposed
249: image of Earth. The first image shows that the CME front is initially a
250: bright, semicircular front, consistent with its appearance in HI1-A. But
251: it quickly fades, becoming much harder to follow. There are other fronts
252: in the FOV (see Fig.~6) associated with a corotating
253: interaction region (CIR), which confuses things further. The CME front
254: appears to overtake the CIR material and the second image in Figure~6
255: shows the CME as it approaches the position of STEREO-B.
256: At this point the front is much more well defined in the southern
257: hemisphere than in the north.
258:
259: Given the potential confusion between our CME front and the
260: CIR material, it is worthwhile to briefly review what CIRs are
261: and how they are perceived by STEREO. \citet{nrs08a,nrs08b} have
262: already described CIR fronts seen by HI2 in some detail, which
263: have been the most prominent structures regularly seen by HI2 in STEREO's
264: first year of operation. The CIRs are basically standing waves of
265: compressed solar wind, where high speed wind coming from low latitude
266: coronal holes is running into low speed wind. The CIRs stretch outwards
267: from the Sun in a spiral shape due to the solar rotation, and have
268: a substantial density enhancement that HI2-A sees as a
269: gradually outward propagating front (or series of fronts) as the CIR
270: rotates into view. The HI2-B imager does {\em not} see the approach
271: of the CIR in the distance like HI2-A does because HI2-B is looking at
272: the west side of the Sun rotating away from the spacecraft instead of the
273: east side rotating towards it, where HI2-A is looking (see
274: Fig.~1). Instead, when the CIR reaches STEREO-B, HI2-B seen a very
275: broad front pass very rapidly through the foreground of the FOV
276: as the CIR passes over and past the spacecraft.
277:
278: Since our CME front appears to overtake a CIR in the HI2-A
279: images, it is tempting to look for evidence of interaction between
280: the two. However, we believe that the leading edge of the CME
281: is actually always ahead of the CIR. The appearance of ``overtaking''
282: is due to a projection effect, where the faster moving CME
283: is in the foreground while the apparently slower CIR material seen in
284: Figure~6 is in the background. Support for this interpretation is
285: provided by Figure~2. The EUVI-B Fe~XII $\lambda$195 images show
286: the coronal hole that is the probable source of the high speed wind
287: responsible for the CIR. The coronal hole is just east of the flare region
288: that represents the CME initiation site, so with respect to the Sun's
289: westward rotation the CME leads the high speed wind that yields the CIR.
290: This is the same coronal hole that we suppose to
291: have deflected the CME into a more southwesterly direction, but the
292: leading edge of the CME is always ahead of the CIR. Nevertheless, it is
293: quite possible that the sides and trailing parts of the CME may be
294: interacting with the CIR structure. Trying to find clear evidence for
295: this in the HI2 data ideally requires guidance from models of CME/CIR
296: interaction. Such an investigation is clearly a worthwhile endeavor, but
297: it is outside the scope of our purely empirical analysis here.
298:
299: Returning to the CME, just as HI2-B does not see CIRs until they
300: engulf STEREO-B, HI2-B does not perceive the February~4 CME
301: until it is practically on top of the spacecraft (as seen from STEREO-A).
302: As the CME approaches and passes over STEREO-B, HI2-B sees a very broad,
303: faint front pass rapidly through the foreground of the FOV,
304: similar in appearance to the CIR fronts described above. Though the
305: rapid front is apparent in HI2-B movies, its faintness combined with
306: its very broad and diffuse nature makes it practically impossible to
307: discern in still images, so we have not attempted to show it in any
308: HI2-B images here.
309: %Hopefully, STEREO will eventually encounter a stronger,
310: %brighter CME that will be able to provide a more dramatic example of
311: %being able to image a CME front from inside it.
312:
313: \subsection{In Situ Observations}
314:
315: Figures~2-6 demonstrate STEREO's ability to track a CME continuously
316: from its origin all the way out to 1~AU using the SECCHI telescopes,
317: even for a modest event like the February~4 CME.
318: Figure~7 demonstrates STEREO's ability to study the properties
319: of the CME when it gets to 1~AU. The upper two panels of Figure~7
320: show the solar wind proton density and velocity sampled by the PLASTIC
321: experiments on both STEREO spacecraft from February~5-17, and the
322: bottom panel shows the magnetic field strength observed by
323: IMPACT. For comparison, we have also added measurements made at
324: Earth's L1 Lagrangian point by ACE and SOHO/CELIAS. Including both ACE
325: and SOHO/CELIAS data provides us with two independent measurements
326: at L1. (The CELIAS instrument does not provide magnetic field
327: measurements, though.) The CME is detected by STEREO-B, and more weakly
328: by ACE and SOHO, but it is not detected at all by STEREO-A.
329:
330: Given that the CME's initiation site is near Sun-center as seen
331: by STEREO-B (see Fig.~2), it is not surprising that the CME eventually
332: hits that spacecraft. STEREO-B sees a density and magnetic field
333: increase on February~7 at the same time that HI2-A sees the CME
334: front reach STEREO-B, so there is good reason to believe that this
335: is the expected ICME corresponding to the February~4 CME. However,
336: the particle and field response are not characteristic of a typical
337: ICME or magnetic cloud \citep[see, e.g.,][]{lj06}, and it is
338: difficult to tell exactly where the ICME begins and ends.
339: The wind velocity increases from an ambient slow solar wind speed of
340: about 360 km~s$^{-1}$ to the CME's propagation speed of 450 km~s$^{-1}$,
341: but the velocity increase trails the density and magnetic field increase by
342: at least 12 hours. Perhaps much of the field and density
343: excess associated with the CME may be slow solar wind that has been
344: overtaken and piled up in front of the original CME front, but we
345: cannot rule out the possibility that the CME may be mixed up with
346: some other magnetic structure, confusing the ICME signature in
347: Figure~7. Another possibility is that the central axis of the
348: CME passed to the south of the spacecraft, leading to a more muddled
349: magnetic field signature.
350:
351: The ICME is also detected by ACE and CELIAS. The velocity profiles
352: seen at L1 are practically identical to that seen by PLASTIC-B. The
353: density profiles seen by ACE and CELIAS are somewhat discrepant. The
354: ACE data show a weak, narrow density spike at the time of maximum
355: density at STEREO-B, while the CELIAS data only show a broad, weak
356: density enhancement. In any case, the density enhancement at L1 is
357: weaker than at STEREO-B. The magnetic field enhancement seen by ACE is
358: also weaker than at STEREO-B, and shorter in duration. Thus,
359: STEREO-B receives a more direct hit from the CME than ACE and SOHO, which
360: are $23.6^{\circ}$ away from STEREO-B (see Fig.~1). This is once again
361: consistent with the CME's direction inferred from the SECCHI images.
362: At an angle from STEREO-B of $45.3^{\circ}$, the PLASTIC and IMPACT
363: instruments on STEREO-A do not see the CME at all, providing a hard
364: upper limit for the angular extent of the CME in the ecliptic plane.
365:
366: It is worthwhile to compare and contrast how HI2 and the in~situ
367: instruments perceive the CME. The CME front seen by HI2-A (see Fig.~6)
368: appears to reach the location of STEREO-B at about 18:00 UT on February~7.
369: This corresponds roughly to the time when the densest part of
370: the CME is passing by STEREO-B (see Fig.~7). However, both the density
371: and magnetic field data indicate that less dense parts of the CME front
372: reach STEREO-B much earlier. This demonstrates that much of the CME
373: structure is unseen by HI2-A. The HI2-A front displayed in Figure~6 is
374: only the densest part of the CME. For ACE and SOHO there is an even
375: greater disconnect between the HI2-A CME front and the in~situ
376: observations of it. Movies of the fading CME front allow it to just
377: barely be tracked out to the position of ACE and SOHO, which it reaches
378: at about 6:00 UT on February~8, well after the weak density enhancement
379: seen by these instruments is over. This means that HI2-A does not
380: see the part of the CME that hits the spacecraft at L1,
381: only seeing the denser parts of the structure that are farther away than
382: L1, in the general direction of STEREO-B.
383:
384: This leads to the schematic picture of the CME geometry shown in
385: Figure~1. Based on the velocity curves in Figure~7, there is essentially
386: no velocity difference along the CME front, and no time delay between the
387: CME arrival at STEREO-B and L1, so the
388: CME front is presumably roughly spherical as it approaches 1~AU, as
389: shown in Figure~1. However, we have argued above that HI2-A only sees
390: the densest part of the CME, which hits STEREO-B, and HI2-A does not see
391: the foreground part that hits L1 and Earth at all. The dotted
392: purple line in Figure~1 crudely estimates the full extent of the CME,
393: which we know hits STEREO-B, ACE, and SOHO but not STEREO-A, while the
394: shorter solid line arc is an estimate of the part of the CME that HI2-A
395: actually sees. It is difficult to know how far the CME
396: extends to the right of STEREO-B in Figure~1. There
397: is little if any emission apparent to the east of the Sun in COR2-B
398: movies (see Fig.~4), which is why we have not extended the CME arc
399: very far to the right of STEREO-B in Figure~1. Thus, the final
400: picture is that of a CME that has a total angular extent of no more
401: than $60^{\circ}$, with the visible part of the CME constituting
402: less than half of that total.
403:
404: Besides showing the CME signatures observed by PLASTIC, IMPACT,
405: ACE, and CELIAS, Figure~7 also shows these instruments' observations of
406: the CIR that follows, the presence of which is also apparent in the
407: HI2-A images in Figure~6, as noted in \S3.1. All these spacecraft see a
408: strong density and magnetic field enhancement, which is accompanied by
409: a big jump in wind velocity as the spacecraft passes from the slow
410: solar wind in front of the CIR to the high speed wind that trails
411: it. Such signatures are typical of CIRs seen by in~situ instruments
412: \citep[e.g.,][]{nrs08a,nrs08b}. There is a significant time delay between
413: when the CIR hits STEREO-B, then ACE and SOHO, and finally STEREO-A. This
414: time delay illustrates the rotating nature of the CIR structure. It is
415: curious that the time delay is significantly longer between ACE/SOHO and
416: STEREO-A than it is between STEREO-B and ACE/SOHO despite the angular
417: separation being about the same (see Fig.~1). It is also interesting
418: that the density, velocity, and magnetic field profiles seen by the
419: three spacecraft are rather different. Though outside the scope of this
420: paper, a more in-depth analysis of this and other STEREO-observed CIRs
421: is certainly worthwhile, especially given the substantial number of
422: these structures observed by STEREO in the past year.
423:
424: \subsection{Kinematic Analysis}
425:
426: Possibly the simplest scientifically useful measurements one can
427: make from a sequence of CME images are measurements of the velocity of
428: the CME as a function of time. However, even these seemingly simple
429: measurements are complicated by uncertainties in how to translate
430: apparent 2-dimensional motion into actual 3-dimensional velocity.
431: We now do a kinematic analysis of the February~4 CME, and in the
432: process we show how comprehensive STEREO observations can
433: improve confidence in such an analysis.
434:
435: In order to measure the velocity and acceleration of a CME's
436: leading edge, positional measurements must first be made from the
437: SECCHI images. What we actually measure is not distance but an
438: elongation angle, $\epsilon$, from Sun center. Many previous authors
439: have discussed methods of inferring distance from Sun-center, $r$,
440: from $\epsilon$ \citep{swk07,tah07,tah08,nrs08b}. One approach, sometimes
441: referred to as the ``Point-P Method,'' assumes the CME leading edge is
442: an intrinsically very broad, uniform, spherical front centered on the
443: Sun, in which case \citep{tah07}
444: \begin{equation}
445: r=d \sin \epsilon.
446: \end{equation}
447: Here $d$ is the distance of the observer to the Sun, which is close to
448: 1~AU for the STEREO spacecraft, but not exactly (see Fig.~1).
449:
450: Another approach, which \citet{swk07} call the
451: ``Fixed-$\phi$ Method,'' assumes that the CME is a relatively narrow,
452: compact structure traveling on a fixed, radial trajectory at an angle,
453: $\phi$, relative to the observer's line of sight to the Sun, in which
454: case
455: \begin{equation}
456: r=\frac{d\sin \epsilon}{\sin(\epsilon+\phi)}.
457: \end{equation}
458: [Note that this is a more compact version of equation (A2)
459: in \citet{swk07}.] In the top panel of Figure~8, we show plots of
460: $r$ versus time, as seen from STEREO-A, using both equations (1) and (2).
461: In the latter case we have assumed the CME trajectory is radial from
462: the flare site, meaning $\phi=46^{\circ}$. There is a time gap in the
463: HI2 measurements, corresponding to when the CME front is too confused
464: with CIR material to make a reliable measurement.
465:
466: The bottom panel of Figure~8 shows velocities computed from
467: the distance measurements in the top panel. Velocities
468: computed strictly from adjacent distance data points often lead to
469: velocities with huge error bars, which vary wildly in time
470: in a very misleading fashion. For this reason, as we compute
471: velocities from the distances point-by-point we actually
472: skip distance points until the uncertainty in the computed velocity
473: ends up under some assumed threshold value (70 km~s$^{-1}$ in this case),
474: similar to what we have done in past analyses of SOHO data \citep{bew99}.
475: The velocity uncertainties are computed assuming the following
476: estimates for the uncertainties in the distance measurements:
477: 1\% fractional errors for the COR1 and COR2 distances,
478: and 2\% and 3\% uncertainties for HI1 and HI2, respectively.
479:
480: There are significant differences in the distance and velocity
481: measurements that result from the use of equations (1) and (2).
482: In order to explore the reasons behind the distance differences,
483: first note that a point in an image represents a direction
484: vector in 3D space. If this vector has a closest approach to the Sun at
485: some point P, the geometry assumed by the Point-P method always
486: assumes that this point P represents the real 3D location of the
487: apparent leading edge seen by the observer. Thus, distances estimated
488: using equation (1) by definition represent a lower bound on
489: the actual distance \citep{tah07}, explaining why the Point-P
490: data points are always at or below the Fixed-$\phi$ data
491: points in Figure~8.
492:
493: The two methods lead to different inferences about the CME's
494: kinematic behavior. The Fixed-$\phi$ method implies an acceleration
495: up to a maximum velocity of about 700 km~s$^{-1}$ in the COR2 FOV,
496: followed by a gradual deceleration through HI1 and into HI2. In
497: contrast, the Point-P method suggests that the CME accelerates to
498: about 500 km~s$^{-1}$ in the COR2 FOV and then continues to accelerate
499: more gradually through HI1 and into HI2, before decelerating
500: precipitously in HI2. However, this last precipitous deceleration
501: is clearly an erroneous artifact of the Point-P geometry, which
502: assumes that the CME has a very broad angular extent, encompassing
503: all potentially observed position angles relative to the Sun, and
504: implicitly assuming that the CME engulfs the observer when it reaches
505: 1~AU. That is why equation (1) does not even allow the possibility
506: of measuring $r$ greater than 1~AU. However, we know that the
507: Feb.~4 CME does {\em not} hit the observer (i.e., STEREO-A).
508:
509: We have argued near the end of \S3.2 that the Feb.~4 CME does
510: not have a very large angular extent, and that the extent of the
511: observed part of the CME is even more limited (see Fig.~1). Thus,
512: the Fixed-$\phi$ geometry is a much better approximation
513: for this particular event. It is important to note that this
514: conclusion will not be the case for broader, brighter CMEs, where
515: the Point P approach might work better. The Fixed-$\phi$ method does
516: have the disadvantage that it requires a reasonably accurate knowledge
517: of $\phi$, though the known flare location provides a good estimate.
518: And as the CME travels outwards, there will still be some degree of
519: uncertainty introduced by the likelihood that the observed leading
520: edge is not precisely following precisely the same part of the CME
521: structure at all times.
522:
523: The effects of these uncertainties can be explored by comparing
524: the CME velocities measured in the HI2-A FOV with the in~situ velocity
525: observed by PLASTIC-B. If the uncertainties are low, the SECCHI
526: image-derived velocities should agree well with the PLASTIC-B velocity.
527: The Fixed-$\phi$ velocities measured in the HI2 FOV in Figure~8 (at
528: times of $t\gtrsim30$~hr) average around 530 km~s$^{-1}$,
529: somewhat higher than the 450 km~s$^{-1}$ velocity seen by PLASTIC-B
530: (see Fig.~7). This is presumably indicative of the aforementioned
531: systematic uncertainties. Figure~9 illustrates how the discrepancy can
532: be addressed by lowering the assumed CME trajectory angle, $\phi$.
533: Figure~9 plots $r$ versus $\phi$ for many values of $\phi$, computed using
534: equation (2). The curves steepen in the HI2 FOV
535: ($\epsilon=19^{\circ}-89^{\circ}$) as $\phi$ increases, meaning that
536: velocities inferred from these distances will also increase. Thus,
537: lowering $\phi$ below the $\phi=46^{\circ}$ value assumed in
538: Figure~8 will lower the inferred HI2 velocities.
539:
540: In order to determine which $\phi$ value works best, we perform a
541: somewhat more sophisticated kinematic analysis than that in Figure~8.
542: Compared to the point-by-point analysis used in Figure~8, a cleaner and
543: smoother velocity profile can be derived from the data if the distance
544: measurements are fitted with some functional form, which in essence
545: assumes that the timescale of velocity variation is long compared to
546: the time difference between adjacent distance measurements.
547: Polynomial or spline fits are examples of such functional forms that
548: can used for these purposes. However, we ultimately decide on a
549: different approach, relying on a very simple physical model of the
550: CME's motion. This model assumes an initial acceleration for the CME,
551: $a_1$, which persists until a time, $t_1$, followed by a second
552: acceleration (or deceleration), $a_2$, lasting until time $t_2$,
553: followed finally by constant velocity. This model also has two
554: additional free parameters: a starting height, and a time shift of
555: the model distance-time profile to match the data. The two-phase
556: model bears some resemblance to the ``main'' and ``residual''
557: acceleration phases of a CME argued for by \citet{jz06}. But to us
558: the appeal of this simple model is that not only are its parameters
559: physical ones of interest, it also seems to fit the data as well or
560: better than more complex functional forms, despite having only six
561: free parameters.
562:
563: Figure~10 shows our best fit to the data using this model.
564: The top panel shows the leading edge distances computed assuming
565: $\phi=38^{\circ}$, which turns out to be the value that leads to
566: the observed PLASTIC-B velocity of 450 km~s$^{-1}$ in the HI2-A FOV.
567: The solid line shows our best fit to the data, determined using a
568: chi-squared minimization routine, where we have assumed the
569: same fractional errors in the distance measurements as we did
570: in Figure~8 (see above). With these assumed uncertainties, the best
571: fit ends up with a reduced chi-squared of $\chi_{\nu}^2=1.33$.
572: This agrees well with the $\chi_{\nu}^2\approx 1$ value expected
573: for a good fit \citep{prb92}, which implies that the error bars
574: assumed for our measurements are neither unrealistically small nor
575: unreasonably large.
576:
577: The bottom two panels of the figure show the velocity and
578: acceleration profiles implied by this fit. The velocity
579: at 1~AU (214~$R_{\odot}$) in the HI2-A FOV ends up at 450 km~s$^{-1}$
580: as promised. It should be emphasized that in forcing the HI2-A velocity
581: to be consistent with the PLASTIC-B measurement, we are implicitly assuming
582: that the part of the CME front being observed by HI2-A has the same
583: velocity as the part of the CME front that hits STEREO-B. Essentially,
584: this amounts to assuming that the CME front is roughly spherical and
585: centered on the Sun at 1~AU, as pictured in Figure~1 and argued for
586: in \S3.2. The excellent agreement between the CME velocity seen by
587: PLASTIC-B and that seen at L1 by ACE and SOHO/CELIAS also implies that
588: this assumption is a very good one for this event. But this may not
589: be the case for all events, so comparing HI2-A and PLASTIC-B velocities
590: may not always be appropriate.
591:
592: The $\phi=38^{\circ}$ value assumed in Figure~10 is $8^{\circ}$
593: less than the $\phi=46^{\circ}$ value that radial outflow from the
594: observed flare site would suggest. This result could indicate that
595: the CME's overall center-of-mass trajectory is truly at least $8^{\circ}$
596: closer to the STEREO-A direction than the flare site would predict.
597: (More if there is a component of deflection perpendicular to the
598: ecliptic plane.) In \S3.1 we noted that the COR1-B and COR2-B images
599: imply a deflection of the CME into a more southwesterly trajectory than
600: suggested by the flare site, possibly due to the adjacent coronal hole.
601: The western component of this deflection would indeed predict a CME
602: trajectory less than $\phi = 46^{\circ}$ angle suggested by the flare.
603: Thus, interpreting the $8^{\circ}$ shift as due to this deflection is
604: quite plausible.
605:
606: However, this interpretation comes with two major caveats.
607: One is that the part of the CME seen as the leading edge by HI2-A
608: is not necessarily representative of either the geometric center of the
609: CME, or its center-of-mass. Measurements
610: from a location different from that of STEREO-A could in principle see
611: a different part of the CME front as being the leading edge, thereby
612: leading to a different trajectory measurement. The second caveat is
613: the aforementioned issue of the observed leading edge not necessarily
614: faithfully following the same part of the CME front at all times,
615: which could yield velocity measurement errors and therefore an
616: erroneous $\phi$ measurement.
617:
618: Figure~10 represents our best kinematic model of the February~4
619: CME, which can be described as follows. The model suggests that the
620: CME's leading edge has an initial acceleration of $a_1=159$ m~s$^{-2}$
621: for its first $t_1=1.1$ hours, reaching a maximum velocity of
622: 689 km~s$^{-1}$ shortly after entering the COR2 FOV. Until $t_2=33$
623: hours the CME then gradually decelerates at a rate of
624: $a_2=-2.1$ m~s$^{-2}$ during its journey through the COR2 and HI1
625: fields of view, eventually reaching its final coast velocity of
626: 451 km~s$^{-1}$ shortly after reaching the HI2 FOV, this velocity being
627: consistent with the PLASTIC-B measurement.
628:
629: Interaction with the ambient solar wind is presumably responsible
630: for the $a_2$ deceleration inferred between 0.024 and 0.47~AU, as the
631: PLASTIC-B data make it clear that the CME is traveling through slower
632: solar wind plasma. Note that the Point-P measurements in Figure~8 are
633: not only inconsistent with this $a_2$ IPM deceleration, but they would
634: actually imply an {\em acceleration} of the CME at that time.
635: This emphasizes the importance of the issue of
636: how to compute distances from elongation angles. Even basic qualitative
637: aspects of a CMEs IPM motion, such as whether it accelerates or
638: decelerates, depend sensitively on this issue. Given that the CME
639: is plowing through slower solar wind material, an IPM deceleration
640: seems far more plausible than an acceleration. This is yet another argument
641: that the Fixed-$\phi$ geometry is better for this particular event
642: than the Point-P geometry.
643:
644: % Finally, it is worthwhile to use our $\phi=38^{\circ}$ measurement
645: %to estimate the angular difference between the CME's final trajectory and
646: %the trajectory expected from the flare location. In order to do this
647: %the $\phi=38^{\circ}$ angle must be decomposed into latitudinal
648: %and longitudinal components. We use a coordinate system with the
649: %origin at Sun-center as viewed from STEREO-A, where the equatorial
650: %plane corresponds to the ecliptic. If the apparent source point of
651: %the CME trajectory on the solar surface has longitude and latitude
652: %coordinates ($l_{\phi}$, $b_{\phi}$), then the following equation
653: %relates $\phi$, $l_{\phi}$, and $b_{\phi}$:
654: %\begin{equation}
655: %\cos \phi=\cos b_{\phi} \cos |l_{\phi}|.
656: %\end{equation}
657: %The latitudinal component of the trajectory can be estimated from the
658: %SECCHI images. The HI1-A images in Figure~5 show that despite an initial
659: %southward component to its motion seen by COR1-A (see Fig.~3), the CME
660: %ultimately ends up quite symmetric about the ecliptic (see Fig.~5), as
661: %previously noted in \S3.1.
662: %%(The orbits of the STEREO spacecraft keep them within
663: %%about $0.3^{\circ}$ of the ecliptic plane as seen from the Sun, so assuming
664: %%they are in the ecliptic and their image planes are therefore
665: %%perpendicular to the ecliptic is a reasonably accurate approximation.)
666: %Thus, we can assume $b_{\phi}\approx 0^{\circ}$, so
667: %$l_{\phi}\approx -38^{\circ}$ from equation (4). (There is a
668: %sign ambiguity for $l_{\phi}$,
669: %but $l_{\phi}=+38^{\circ}$ would imply a CME directed to the west of
670: %STEREO-A, which clearly is not right.) The flare position from the
671: %perspective of STEREO-A is ($l_{f}$, $b_{f}$)=($-45.8$,$-7.7$). The
672: %angular difference $\theta_{d}$ between the flare site and our
673: %inferred CME apparent source point can now be computed using
674: %\begin{equation}
675: %\cos \theta_{d}=\sin b_{\phi} \sin b_{f}+\cos b_{\phi} \cos b_{f}
676: % \cos |l_{\phi}-l_{f}|,
677: %\end{equation}
678: %which yields $\theta_{d}=11^{\circ}$. Thus, the combination of
679: %the apparent initial southwest deflection noted in the COR1 images
680: %and the following deflection towards the ecliptic plane in COR2
681: %(see \S3.1) ends up yielding a total deflection of about $11^{\circ}$.
682:
683: \subsection{Implications for Space Weather Prediction}
684:
685: An event like the February~4 CME is perfect for assessing the
686: degree to which the unique viewpoint of the STEREO spacecraft can
687: yield better estimates of arrival times for Earth-directed CMEs. The
688: February~4 CME is directed at STEREO-B, so STEREO-B's in~situ
689: instruments tell us exactly when the CME reaches 1~AU, but the STEREO-B
690: images of the event close to the Sun provide very poor velocity estimates
691: by themselves because of the lack of knowledge of the CME's precise
692: trajectory. For full halo CMEs, \citet{rs05} provide a prescription to
693: determine the true expansion velocity from its lateral expansion
694: \citep[see also][]{rs06}. But the uncertainties remain large, and in any
695: case this prescription is not helpful for our February~4 event, which is
696: barely perceived as a partial halo, let alone a full halo. Therefore, it
697: is STEREO-A that by far provides the best assessment of the CME's kinematic
698: behavior thanks to its location away from the CME's path. And it is
699: STEREO-A that is therefore in a much better position to predict
700: ahead of time when the event should reach STEREO-B.
701:
702: To better quantify this, we imagine a situation where only STEREO-B
703: data is available. The CME has just taken place and the CME has been
704: observed by COR1-B and COR2-B as shown in Figures~3 and 4. We can then
705: ask the question, what would our estimated CME velocity
706: be from the STEREO-B data alone and what would be the predicted
707: arrival time at 1~AU? The apparent plane-of-sky velocity of the CME
708: in the COR2-B images is about 240 km~s$^{-1}$ (assuming $\phi=90^{\circ}$).
709: The total travel time to Earth at this speed is about 174 hours, leading
710: to a predicted arrival time of roughly Februrary~11, 15:00 UT. This
711: is 4 days after the actual arrival time on February~7, so this prediction
712: is obviously very poor!
713:
714: If the EUVI-B flare location is used to provide
715: an estimated trajectory of $\phi=10^{\circ}$, the velocity
716: estimated from the COR2-B data increases dramatically to about
717: 1000 km~s$^{-1}$. In this case the 1~AU travel time decreases
718: to only 42 hours, corresponding to a predicted arrival time
719: of February~6, 3:00 UT. This is well over a day {\em before} the
720: actual arrival time. For events directed at the observing
721: spacecraft, CME velocity measurements are particularly sensitive to
722: uncertainties in the exact trajectory angle. There is
723: also the problem that the observed leading edge motion in the COR2-B
724: images may have more to do with the lateral expansion of the CME rather
725: than the motion outwards from the Sun.
726:
727: If a similar thought experiment is done for the
728: STEREO-A data, the COR2-A images alone and an assumption of
729: the $\phi=46^{\circ}$ trajectory suggested by the EUVI-A flare
730: site lead to a CME velocity in COR2-A of about 590 km~s$^{-1}$.
731: This corresponds to a 1~AU travel time of about 71 hours, leading to
732: a predicted arrival time at 1~AU of February~7, 8:00 UT. This is only
733: a few hours after the arrival of the CME suggested by the
734: IMPACT-B magnetic field data (see Fig.~7), though it is about 13
735: hours before the peak density seen by PLASTIC-B, which is what the CME
736: front observed by the SECCHI imagers actually corresponds to
737: (see \S3.3). Improving the arrival time prediction of the peak
738: CME density would require taking into account the deceleration
739: of the CME during its travel through the IPM (see Fig.~10).
740:
741: It is clear that STEREO-A's perspective provides a dramatic
742: improvement in our ability to predict when the February~4 CME
743: reaches STEREO-B. An analysis of multiple events like this
744: one would allow this improvement to be better quantified.
745: In the spirit of previous analyses such as \citet{ng01},
746: perhaps an analysis of multiple events such as this one would also
747: provide empirical guidance in how to predict the deceleration
748: during IPM travel (or perhaps acceleration in some cases), which
749: is clearly necessary to achieve arrival time estimates that are
750: good to within a few hours. The ability of SECCHI to provide
751: continuous tracking information on CMEs could in principle allow
752: time-of-arrival estimates to be continously improved during a
753: CME's journey to 1~AU.
754:
755: \section{SUMMARY}
756:
757: We have presented STEREO observations of a CME that occurred in
758: the depths of the 2008 solar minimum, when there were not many of
759: these events taking place. The February~4 CME is not a particularly
760: dramatic event, but it has an advantageous trajectory. It is directed
761: at STEREO-B, so that it eventually hits that spacecraft and is
762: detected by its in~situ instruments. A different part of the CME
763: hits the ACE and SOHO spacecraft at Earth's L1 Lagrangian point.
764: The CME's trajectory is far enough away from the STEREO-A direction
765: that STEREO-A images can provide an accurate assessment of the CME's
766: kinematic behavior, which is not possible from STEREO-B's location.
767: This event illustrates just how much the appearance of a CME can
768: differ between the two STEREO spacecraft, which at the time had
769: an angular separation relative to the Sun of $45.3^{\circ}$, a
770: separation that continues to increase with time by about $44^{\circ}$
771: per year.
772: %The faintness of the event as seen from STEREO-B implies
773: %that a CME with a given mass is significantly easier to detect if
774: %it is a limb event instead of a halo event.
775:
776: Despite the relative faintness of the event, the SECCHI imagers are
777: still able to track it continuously all the way from the Sun to 1~AU,
778: which provides hope that as the Sun moves towards solar maximum, STEREO
779: will be able to provide similarly comprehensive observations of many
780: more such CMEs. The kinematic analysis presented here is the first
781: based on such a comprehensive STEREO data set, involving both SECCHI
782: images and in~situ data, but hopefully many others will follow.
783: We have used two different methods of computing CME leading edge
784: distances from measured elongation angles: 1. The Point-P method,
785: which assumes the CME is a broad, uniform, spherical front; and
786: 2. The Fixed-$\phi$ method, which assumes a narrow, compact CME
787: structure traveling radially from the Sun. Our analysis illustrates
788: just how sensitive conclusions about the kinematic behavior of a CME
789: are to the method used. The first method suggests continued
790: acceleration in the IPM, while the second implies a deceleration.
791: Fortunately, the comprehensive nature of observations of the
792: February~4 CME has provided us with an abundance of evidence that the
793: observable part of this CME has a very limited angular extent.
794: Therefore, the Fixed-$\phi$ method is clearly best in this case,
795: leading to our best kinematic model for the CME in Figure~10. But we do
796: not expect the Fixed-$\phi$ method to necessarily be the best
797: option for all STEREO-observed CMEs.
798:
799: Finally, the geometry of the event allows us to use the two
800: spacecrafts' observations to quantify just how much more accurately
801: the CME's arrival time at 1~AU can be predicted using images taken
802: away from the CME's path (from STEREO-A in this case), compared to
803: images taken from directly within it (from STEREO-B in
804: this case). The STEREO-A prediction proves to be dramatically
805: better than STEREO-B's. Thus, STEREO could in principle be able to
806: improve space weather forecasting for Earth-directed events in the
807: coming years.
808:
809: \acknowledgments
810:
811: We would like to thank Neil Sheeley and Peter Schroeder for
812: helpful discussions and assistance in this project.
813: The STEREO/SECCHI data are produced by a consortium of NRL (US),
814: LMSAL (US), NASA/GSFC (US), RAL (UK), UBHAM (UK), MPS (Germany), CSL
815: (Belgium), IOTA (France), and IAS (France). In addition to funding
816: by NASA, NRL also received support from the USAF Space Test Program
817: and ONR. In addition to SECCHI, this work has also made use of data
818: provided by the STEREO IMPACT and PLASTIC teams, supported by NASA
819: contracts NAS5-00132 and NAS5-00133. We have also made use of data
820: provided by the CELIAS/MTOF experiment on SOHO, which is a joint
821: ESA and NASA mission. We thank the ACE SWEPAM and MAG instrument
822: teams and the ACE Science Center for providing the ACE data.
823:
824: \begin{thebibliography}{}
825:
826: \bibitem[Acu\~{n}a et al.(2008)]{mha08}
827: Acu\~{n}a, M. H., Curtis, D., Scheifele, J. L., Russell, C. T.,
828: Schroeder, P., Szabo, A., \& Luhmann, J. G. 2008, Space Sci.~Rev., 136, 203
829: \bibitem[Andrews(2002)]{mda02}
830: Andrews, M. D. 2002, Sol.~Phys., 208, 317
831: \bibitem[Bevington \& Robinson(1992)]{prb92}
832: Bevington, P. R., \& Robinson, D. K. 1992, Data Reduction and Error Analysis
833: for the Physical Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill)
834: \bibitem[Bougeret et al.(2008)]{jlb08}
835: Bougeret, J. L., et al. 2008, Space Sci.~Rev., 136, 487
836: \bibitem[Cremades \& Bothmer(2004)]{hc04}
837: Cremades, H., \& Bothmer, V. 2004, A\&A, 422, 307
838: \bibitem[Eyles et al.(2003)]{cje03}
839: Eyles, C. J., et al. 2003, Sol.~Phys., 217, 319
840: \bibitem[Galvin et al.(2008)]{abg08}
841: Galvin, A. B., et al. 2008, Space Sci.~Rev., 136, 437
842: \bibitem[Gopalswamy et al.(2001)]{ng01}
843: Gopalswamy, N., Lara, A., Yashiro, S., Kaiser, M. L., \& Howard, R. A.
844: 2001, J.~Geophys.~Res., 106, 29207
845: \bibitem[Harrison et al.(2008)]{raha08}
846: Harrison, R. A., et al. 2008, Sol.~Phys., 247, 171
847: \bibitem[Howard et al.(2008)]{raho08}
848: Howard, R. A, et al. 2008, Space Sci.~Rev., 136, 67
849: \bibitem[Howard et al.(2007)]{tah07}
850: Howard, T. A., Fry, C. D., Johnston, J. C., \& Webb, D. F. 2007, ApJ, 667, 610
851: \bibitem[Howard et al.(2008)]{tah08}
852: Howard, T. A., Nandy, D., \& Koepke, A. C. 2008, J.~Geophys.~Res., 113, A01104
853: \bibitem[Jackson et al.(2004)]{bvj04}
854: Jackson, B. V., et al. 2004, Sol.~Phys., 225, 177
855: \bibitem[Jian et al.(2006)]{lj06}
856: Jian, L., Russell, C. T., Luhmann, J. G., \& Skoug, R. M. 2006, Sol.~Phys.,
857: 239, 393
858: \bibitem[Kahler \& Webb(2007)]{swk07}
859: Kahler, S. W., \& Webb, D. F. 2007, J.~Geophys.~Res., 112, A09103
860: \bibitem[Luhmann et al.(2008)]{jgl08}
861: Luhmann, J. G., et al. 2008, Space Sci.~Rev., 136, 117
862: \bibitem[Schwenn(2006)]{rs06}
863: Schwenn, R. 2006, Living Rev. Solar Phys. 3, 2,
864: URL: http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2006-2
865: \bibitem[Schwenn et al.(2005)]{rs05}
866: Schwenn, R., dal Lago, A., Huttunen, E., \& Gonzalez, W. D., 2005,
867: Ann.~Geophys., 23, 1033
868: \bibitem[Sheeley et al.(2008a)]{nrs08a}
869: Sheeley, N. R., Jr., et al. 2008a, ApJ, 674, L109
870: \bibitem[Sheeley et al.(2008b)]{nrs08b}
871: Sheeley, N. R., Jr., et al. 2008b, ApJ, 675, 853
872: \bibitem[Vourlidas \& Howard(2006)]{av06}
873: Vourlidas, A., \& Howard, R. A. 2006, ApJ, 642, 1216
874: \bibitem[Webb et al.(2006)]{dfw06}
875: Webb, D. F., et al. 2006, J.~Geophys.~Res., 111, A12101
876: \bibitem[Wood et al.(1999)]{bew99}
877: Wood, B. E., Karovska, M., Chen, J., Brueckner, G. E., Cook, J. W., \&
878: Howard, R. A. 1999, ApJ, 512, 484
879: \bibitem[Zhang \& Dere(2006)]{jz06}
880: Zhang, J., \& Dere, K. P. 2006, ApJ, 649, 1100
881:
882: \end{thebibliography}
883:
884: \clearpage
885:
886: \begin{figure}[p]
887: %\plotone{/home/origins/woodb/props/sh02/fig2.eps}
888: \plotone{f1.ps}
889: \caption{The locations of Earth, STEREO-A, STEREO-B, and the Sun
890: (at the origin) on 2008~February~4 in heliocentric aries ecliptic
891: coordinates. The red, green, and blue dotted lines indicate the
892: fields of view of the COR2, HI1, and HI2 telescopes on board
893: STEREO-A and B. The purple arc is an estimated location for the
894: Feb.~4 CME's leading edge as it approaches 1~AU, where the part of
895: the arc represented as a solid
896: line is the part of the CME that we detect in SECCHI images from
897: STEREO-A
898: images, and the dotted line indicates the parts of the CME front
899: that we do not see (see \S3.2).}
900: \end{figure}
901:
902: \begin{figure}[p]
903: \plotone{f2.ps}
904: \caption{Sequences of EUVI images taken near the beginning of the
905: 2008 Feb.~4 CME. The upper 2 sequences are He~II $\lambda$304
906: and Fe~XII $\lambda$195 images from STEREO-A and the bottom 2
907: sequences are He~II and Fe~XII images from STEREO-B. The arrows
908: point to a region that flares weakly during the event.
909: The EUVI-A He~II $\lambda$304 images also show a prominence eruption
910: off the southeast limb.}
911: \end{figure}
912:
913: \begin{figure}[p]
914: \plotone{f3.ps}
915: \caption{Running-difference COR1 images from STEREO-A (top) and STEREO-B
916: (bottom) showing the 2008 Feb.~4 CME erupting off the southeast limb in
917: COR1-A, but primarily off the southwest limb in COR1-B. The white circle
918: indicates the location of the solar disk.}
919: \end{figure}
920:
921: \begin{figure}[p]
922: \plotone{f4.ps}
923: \caption{Running-difference COR2 images from STEREO-A (top) and STEREO-B
924: (bottom) showing the 2008 Feb.~4 CME. The CME is clearly seen off the
925: east limb in COR2-A, but it is much fainter and primarily off the
926: southwest limb in COR2-B (arrows). The white circle
927: indicates the location of the solar disk. Beyond the occulter there
928: is some additional masking for COR2-B to hide blooming caused by a
929: slight miscentering of the Sun behind the occulting disk.}
930: \end{figure}
931:
932: \begin{figure}[p]
933: \plotone{f5.ps}
934: \caption{Running-difference HI1 images from STEREO-A (top) and STEREO-B
935: (bottom) showing the 2008 Feb.~4 CME. The Sun is to the right in the
936: HI1-A images and to the left for HI1-B (see Fig.~1). The CME front is
937: obvious in HI1-A, but is only faintly visible in the lower
938: left corner of the last two HI1-B images (arrows).}
939: \end{figure}
940: \begin{figure}[p]
941:
942: \plotone{f6.ps}
943: \caption{Running-difference HI2 images from STEREO-A showing
944: the 2008 Feb.~4 CME (arrows). The positions of the Earth, SOHO,
945: and STEREO-B are also shown. The first image shows the bright CME
946: front as it enters the field of view on Feb.~5, but the CME front quickly
947: fades and becomes confused with a CIR structure in the background,
948: which is gradually rotating towards the observer. The second
949: image shows the CME front just before it crosses the apparent
950: position of STEREO-B on Feb.~7.}
951: \end{figure}
952:
953: \begin{figure}[p]
954: \plotone{f7.ps}
955: \caption{Proton density, solar wind velocity, and magnetic field
956: strength are plotted versus time using data from the PLASTIC and IMPACT
957: instruments on STEREO A and B. Also included are data from ACE and
958: the CELIAS instrument on SOHO, both residing at Earth's L1 Lagrangian
959: point. The 2008 Feb.~4 CME is observed by STEREO-B on Feb.~7, and much
960: more weakly by ACE and SOHO/CELIAS. It is not seen at all by STEREO-A.
961: A CIR is observed a couple days after the CME by STEREO-B, at a later
962: time by SOHO/CELIAS and ACE, and later still by STEREO-A as the
963: structure rotates past the various spacecraft.}
964: \end{figure}
965:
966: \begin{figure}[p]
967: \plotone{f8.ps}
968: \caption{The top panel shows two different versions of the
969: distance-vs.-time plot for the leading edge of the Feb.~4 CME,
970: computed using two different methods to get from measured elongation
971: angle to physical distance from Sun-center. The green measurements
972: assume the ``Point-P'' method (equation 1), and the red
973: data points assume the ``Fixed-$\phi$'' method (equation 2).
974: The symbols indicate which SECCHI imager on STEREO-A is responsible
975: for the measurement. The bottom panel shows velocities computed
976: from the distance measurements.}
977: \end{figure}
978:
979: \begin{figure}[p]
980: \plotone{f9.ps}
981: \caption{A plot of inferred distance from Sun-center ($r$) as a function
982: of measured elongation angle $\epsilon$, for seven values of the CME
983: trajectory angle $\phi$, using equation (2). The $\phi=46^{\circ}$
984: curve is emphasized since that is the trajectory angle suggested
985: by the flare location (see Fig.~2).}
986: \end{figure}
987:
988: \begin{figure}[p]
989: \plotone{f10.ps}
990: \caption{The top panel shows the distance from Sun-center of the
991: leading edge of the 2008 Feb.~4 CME as a function of time,
992: assuming the CME trajectory angle is $\phi=38^{\circ}$ from the
993: line of sight. The $t=0$ time is 8:36 UT, roughly when the flare
994: associated with this CME begins. The symbols indicate which SECCHI
995: imager on STEREO-A is responsible for the measurement. The data
996: points are fitted with a simple kinematic model assuming an initial
997: acceleration phase, a second deceleration phase, and then a
998: constant velocity phase. The best fit is shown as a solid line
999: in the top panel. The bottom two panels show the velocity
1000: and acceleration profiles suggested by this fit.}
1001: \end{figure}
1002:
1003:
1004: \end{document}
1005:
1006: %euvi/euvi304_195
1007: %cor1/cor1_2rd
1008: %cor2/cor2rd
1009: %hi1/hi1_1rd
1010: %/data/hi2months/feb08/hi2_1rd_emb
1011: %movie2