From richardson@lheavx.gsfc.nasa.gov Sat Mar 5 22:48:00 2005 Return-Path: Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by sv01.scs.gmu.edu (8.13.1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j263m05e028026 for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:48:00 -0500 Received: from IansLaptop.lheavx.gsfc.nasa.gov (pcp04300329pcs.anaprd01.md.comcast.net [68.49.191.97]) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j263gMj0032445; Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:42:29 -0500 Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.1.20050305220316.01dbb188@lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov> X-Sender: ianr@lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 22:41:44 -0500 To: Nariaki V Nitta From: Ian Richardson Subject: Re: Events with unambiguous solar drivers Cc: jiez@scs.gmu.edu, Webb David F Contr AFRL/VSBX , "'Barbara Thompson'" , Nat Gopalswamy , Ryuho Kataoka , Emilia Huttunen , Alejandro Lara , Angelos Vourlidas , Seiji Yashiro , Chin-Chun Wu , Alexander Nindos , Volker Bothmer , Yang Liu , Justin Kasper , Hong Xie , Vasyl Yurchyshyn , Christophe Marque , Cliver Edward W Civ AFRL/VSBXS , Robert MacDowall , Daniel Berdichevsky , Georgoulis Manolis , Andrei Zhukov , Doug Biesecker , John Steinberg In-Reply-To: <42294617.8020207@lmsal.com> References: <010F73C38C145744BAE4599B97F020E302D5B2C3@ml66sc-mb-05.hanscom.af.mil> <1109988282.14803.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> <6.1.2.0.1.20050305000125.01db5320@lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov> <42294617.8020207@lmsal.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.49 on 128.183.16.62 Status: RO X-UID: 25279 Content-Length: 6569 X-Keywords: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Evolution-Source: imap://jiez@mail.scs.gmu.edu/ X-Evolution: 00000002-0010 Hi Nariaki, The ICME following the 4 May shock has been described as "complex" - if I recall, there is a Burlaga paper on it, though I don't have the reference to hand. However, the storm is caused by strong southward fields in the plasma immediately following the shock*, not by the ICME per se. *If I recall from discussion with Daniel some time ago, this may not be a strict shock, but a slightly broader structure. There is certainly an earlier ICME (from the 29th April solar event) just ahead of the shock. It's quite hard to tell whether ACE exits the ICME just before the shock arrives, or if the shock ploughs into the ICME trailing edge, which has a predominantly southward field of <~10 nT, and increases it to ~30 nT by compression. I've not really studied this event in detail, so perhaps someone else has another opinion! So the "complexity" of the ICME associated with the May 4 is probably not relevant to the generation of the storm, but there may be an additional ingredient (the trailing edge of the preceding ICME) in addition to the "shock" on May 4. Late November 2000 is certainly a busy period at the Sun, with several halo CMEs (e.g., ~7 fast halos and 2 partial halos in November 24 - 26). Maybe someone's attempted to make associations with the 1 AU structures, but, we decided it would be too difficult to come to any sufficiently reliable conclusion. Hope this helps to answer your questions, Ian At 12:39 AM 3/5/2005, Nariaki V Nitta wrote: >First, great Job, Jie, thank you. > >Second, I would like to know from Ian and IP experts whether the >4-May-1998 event can be attributed to one CME. My vague memory from a >SHINE meeting several years ago makes me think this was an example of >complex ejecta. Also, I would like to know the possibility that the IP >disturbances of late November 2000 (e.g., Burlaga et al. 2002) can be >decomposed into well-identified CMEs. > >Nariaki > > > >Ian Richardson wrote on 03/04/05 21:25: >>Hi Jie, >>Thanks for comparing the lists so quickly, on top of your data compiling >>"duties". >>If it makes Barbara "happier", I would suggest that many of the "C2" >>events are also reasonably well, if not firmly, identified. For example, >>the May 4, 1998 event doesn't appear on the C1 list, but there have been >>numerous publications discussing the associated IP structures and >>relating them to the May 2, 1406 CME. The "standout" among the lists >>considered here is G-Y, which gives the source as the April 29th >>CME. This however has been associated by many publications with the >>earlier shock and ICME on May 1/2. The storm interval does start with >>this event, but the peak of the storm on May 4 appears to be related to >>the later CME. >>Ian >> >>At 09:04 PM 3/4/2005, Jie Zhang wrote: >> >>>Hi, all, >>> >>>In the WG1 telecom yesterday, it seemed there is a strong demand of >>>putting >>>together a subset of events whose solar drivers are unambiguously >>>identified. >>>This is particularly important for those who are providing data about >>>the surface source regions, >>>e.g., magnetogram, EIT, coronal field models, Halpha. >>> >>>Here is a result based on the survey of 4 independent studies. Among the >>>70 events (1996 to 2003), >>>27 events are found to have consensus among all researchers who made the >>>identification. >>>All these events are believed to be driven by one and only one solar >>>CME. >>>These are event numbered >>> 3, 4, 15, 17, 18, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, >>> 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50, >>> 51, 52, 54, 57, 68, 69, 70 >>> >>> >>>In our WG1 data table, I have made some data links for these events, >>>including the CME onset time, >>>heliocentric coordinate, and NOAA AR number (if present). Please check >>>the WG1 data table at the >>>GMU site at >>>"http://solar.scs.gmu.edu/meetings/cdaw/data/cdaw1/Data_WG1.html". But >>>it will be updated >>>into the GSFC/CDAW site later. >>> >>>In column 3 (solar driver) of the table, these events are identified as >>>"C1" and "Unique". Two parameters >>>are used to indicate the solar driver identification: Confidence Level >>>and Solar Driver Types. >>>I plan to use the following convention: >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>Confidence Level: >>>---------------- >>> C1: there is a consensus among all researchers, whoever identified >>>the source. >>> C2: there is a majority agreement among researchers (e.g., 3/4, or >>>2/3), but there is different identification from others. >>> C3: there is no majority agreement among researchers, although >>>there is a comprehensive data coverage >>> C4: a poor level of confidence, mainly because of significant data >>>gap of key observations, such as LASCO, EIT. >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>>Solar Driver Types: >>>------------------- >>> U: unique halo CME, mostly front-side >>> M: multiple halo CMEs >>> C: Coronal Hole or CIR (Corotating Interaction Region) >>> Q: Questionable Source, difficult to identify though most data are >>>available >>> N: not applicable, because of missing significant data. >>>Note 1: A combination of drivers is allowed, such as C+U, or C+M >>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>>At present, the survey is based on four independent studies; they are >>> >>> * Z: Jie Zhang's table of solar sources of major geomagnetic >>>storms (1996-2003) (.html) >>> * G-Y: Gopal & Yashiro's identification of solar source of major >>>geomagnetic storms (1996-2003) (.html) >>> * C-R: Cane and Richardson's ICME list (1996-2002) (.pdf) >>> * W: Webb's list of full halo CMEs and their solar sources and >>>IP response (1996-2000) (.xls) >>> >>> >>>So, let's see if there is a real consensus about these events. Please >>>let us know if you have >>>a different opinion. >>> >>>By the way, comments and suggestions about the classification >>>parameters? >>> >>>Best Regards, >>> >>>-Jie >>>-- >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>Dr. Jie Zhang >>>George Mason University School of Computational Sciences >>>4400 University Dr., Fairfax, VA 22030, USA >>>Office Phone: (703)993-1998 Fax: (703)993-1980 >>>E-mail: jiez@scs.gmu.edu URL: http://solar.scs.gmu.edu >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > From nitta@lmsal.com Sat Mar 5 00:39:41 2005 Return-Path: Received: from lmsal.com (mail.lmsal.com [198.116.7.6]) by sv01.scs.gmu.edu (8.13.1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j255dfit018267 for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2005 00:39:41 -0500 Received: from [198.116.7.249] (account nitta HELO lmsal.com) by lmsal.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.9) with ESMTP id 3025084; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:39:35 -0800 Message-ID: <42294617.8020207@lmsal.com> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:39:35 -0800 From: Nariaki V Nitta Organization: LMSAL User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040116 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de, cs, ja, zh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Richardson CC: jiez@scs.gmu.edu, Webb David F Contr AFRL/VSBX , "'Barbara Thompson'" , Nat Gopalswamy , Ryuho Kataoka , Emilia Huttunen , Alejandro Lara , Angelos Vourlidas , Seiji Yashiro , Chin-Chun Wu , Alexander Nindos , Volker Bothmer , Yang Liu , Justin Kasper , Hong Xie , Vasyl Yurchyshyn , Christophe Marque , Cliver Edward W Civ AFRL/VSBXS , Robert MacDowall , Daniel Berdichevsky , Georgoulis Manolis , Andrei Zhukov , Doug Biesecker , John Steinberg Subject: Re: Events with unambiguous solar drivers References: <010F73C38C145744BAE4599B97F020E302D5B2C3@ml66sc-mb-05.hanscom.af.mil> <1109988282.14803.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> <6.1.2.0.1.20050305000125.01db5320@lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.1.20050305000125.01db5320@lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-UID: 25258 Content-Length: 5040 X-Keywords: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Evolution-Source: imap://jiez@mail.scs.gmu.edu/ X-Evolution: 00000004-0010 First, great Job, Jie, thank you. Second, I would like to know from Ian and IP experts whether the 4-May-1998 event can be attributed to one CME. My vague memory from a SHINE meeting several years ago makes me think this was an example of complex ejecta. Also, I would like to know the possibility that the IP disturbances of late November 2000 (e.g., Burlaga et al. 2002) can be decomposed into well-identified CMEs. Nariaki Ian Richardson wrote on 03/04/05 21:25: > Hi Jie, > > Thanks for comparing the lists so quickly, on top of your data compiling > "duties". > > If it makes Barbara "happier", I would suggest that many of the "C2" > events are also reasonably well, if not firmly, identified. For > example, the May 4, 1998 event doesn't appear on the C1 list, but there > have been numerous publications discussing the associated IP structures > and relating them to the May 2, 1406 CME. The "standout" among the > lists considered here is G-Y, which gives the source as the April 29th > CME. This however has been associated by many publications with the > earlier shock and ICME on May 1/2. The storm interval does start with > this event, but the peak of the storm on May 4 appears to be related to > the later CME. > > Ian > > > At 09:04 PM 3/4/2005, Jie Zhang wrote: > >> Hi, all, >> >> In the WG1 telecom yesterday, it seemed there is a strong demand of >> putting >> together a subset of events whose solar drivers are unambiguously >> identified. >> This is particularly important for those who are providing data about >> the surface source regions, >> e.g., magnetogram, EIT, coronal field models, Halpha. >> >> Here is a result based on the survey of 4 independent studies. Among the >> 70 events (1996 to 2003), >> 27 events are found to have consensus among all researchers who made the >> identification. >> All these events are believed to be driven by one and only one solar >> CME. >> These are event numbered >> 3, 4, 15, 17, 18, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, >> 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50, >> 51, 52, 54, 57, 68, 69, 70 >> >> >> In our WG1 data table, I have made some data links for these events, >> including the CME onset time, >> heliocentric coordinate, and NOAA AR number (if present). Please check >> the WG1 data table at the >> GMU site at >> "http://solar.scs.gmu.edu/meetings/cdaw/data/cdaw1/Data_WG1.html". But >> it will be updated >> into the GSFC/CDAW site later. >> >> In column 3 (solar driver) of the table, these events are identified as >> "C1" and "Unique". Two parameters >> are used to indicate the solar driver identification: Confidence Level >> and Solar Driver Types. >> I plan to use the following convention: >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Confidence Level: >> ---------------- >> C1: there is a consensus among all researchers, whoever identified >> the source. >> C2: there is a majority agreement among researchers (e.g., 3/4, or >> 2/3), but there is different identification from others. >> C3: there is no majority agreement among researchers, although >> there is a comprehensive data coverage >> C4: a poor level of confidence, mainly because of significant data >> gap of key observations, such as LASCO, EIT. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> Solar Driver Types: >> ------------------- >> U: unique halo CME, mostly front-side >> M: multiple halo CMEs >> C: Coronal Hole or CIR (Corotating Interaction Region) >> Q: Questionable Source, difficult to identify though most data are >> available >> N: not applicable, because of missing significant data. >> Note 1: A combination of drivers is allowed, such as C+U, or C+M >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> At present, the survey is based on four independent studies; they are >> >> * Z: Jie Zhang's table of solar sources of major geomagnetic >> storms (1996-2003) (.html) >> * G-Y: Gopal & Yashiro's identification of solar source of major >> geomagnetic storms (1996-2003) (.html) >> * C-R: Cane and Richardson's ICME list (1996-2002) (.pdf) >> * W: Webb's list of full halo CMEs and their solar sources and >> IP response (1996-2000) (.xls) >> >> >> So, let's see if there is a real consensus about these events. Please >> let us know if you have >> a different opinion. >> >> By the way, comments and suggestions about the classification >> parameters? >> >> Best Regards, >> >> -Jie >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Dr. Jie Zhang >> George Mason University School of Computational Sciences >> 4400 University Dr., Fairfax, VA 22030, USA >> Office Phone: (703)993-1998 Fax: (703)993-1980 >> E-mail: jiez@scs.gmu.edu URL: http://solar.scs.gmu.edu >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > From Andrei.Zhukov@oma.be Mon Mar 7 05:06:15 2005 Return-Path: Received: from bonnie.oma.be (bonnie.oma.be [193.190.231.71]) by sv01.scs.gmu.edu (8.13.1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j27A6EmZ014056 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 05:06:15 -0500 Received: from sol007.oma.be (bonnie.oma.be [193.190.231.71]) by bonnie.oma.be (8.11.1 (Revision 1.5) /8.11.1) with ESMTP id j27A5tk03965; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:05:55 GMT From: Andrei Zhukov Organization: ROB To: Ian Richardson , Nariaki V Nitta Subject: Re: Events with unambiguous solar drivers Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:03:04 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: jiez@scs.gmu.edu, Webb David F Contr AFRL/VSBX , "'Barbara Thompson'" , Nat Gopalswamy , Ryuho Kataoka , Emilia Huttunen , Alejandro Lara , Angelos Vourlidas , Seiji Yashiro , Chin-Chun Wu , Alexander Nindos , Volker Bothmer , Yang Liu , Justin Kasper , Hong Xie , Vasyl Yurchyshyn , Christophe Marque , Cliver Edward W Civ AFRL/VSBXS , Robert MacDowall , Daniel Berdichevsky , Georgoulis Manolis , Doug Biesecker , John Steinberg References: <010F73C38C145744BAE4599B97F020E302D5B2C3@ml66sc-mb-05.hanscom.af.mil> <42294617.8020207@lmsal.com> <6.1.2.0.1.20050305220316.01dbb188@lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.1.20050305220316.01dbb188@lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200503071003.04010.Andrei.Zhukov@oma.be> Status: O X-UID: 25309 Content-Length: 2518 X-Keywords: X-Evolution-Source: imap://jiez@mail.scs.gmu.edu/ X-Evolution: 00000006-0111 Dear Ian and Nariaki, Regarding the May 4 event, I think that the whole period of May 2 - 5 has to be considered, as the ICMEs are not very well separated from each other. It is possible that a particularly geoeffective structure arises from the interaction of ICMEs propagating in the heliosphere! There's an ICME of May 2 - 3 (shock around 21:00 May 1), then another shock arrives (May 3, 17:00) and only then there's a ''shock'' of May 4 followed by a complex ICME. There're four frontside halo CMEs during this period (April 29, May 1 and two on May 2), and I think all of them contributed to this busy period. The first one gave a relatively weak storm on May 2 - first half of May 3 (this CME was more or less separated from the others), but then the second shock arrived (May 3) followed by a multiple (triple?) ICME structure (end of May 3 - May 5) with another ''shock'' (May 4) embedded. I'll also check the late November 2000 event. Andrei. On Sunday 06 March 2005 03:41, Ian Richardson wrote: > Hi Nariaki, > > The ICME following the 4 May shock has been described as "complex" - if I > recall, there is a Burlaga paper on it, though I don't have the reference > to hand. However, the storm is caused by strong southward fields in the > plasma immediately following the shock*, not by the ICME per se. > > *If I recall from discussion with Daniel some time ago, this may not be a > strict shock, but a slightly broader structure. > > There is certainly an earlier ICME (from the 29th April solar event) just > ahead of the shock. It's quite hard to tell whether ACE exits the ICME > just before the shock arrives, or if the shock ploughs into the ICME > trailing edge, which has a predominantly southward field of <~10 nT, and > increases it to ~30 nT by compression. > > I've not really studied this event in detail, so perhaps someone else has > another opinion! > > So the "complexity" of the ICME associated with the May 4 is probably not > relevant to the generation of the storm, but there may be an additional > ingredient (the trailing edge of the preceding ICME) in addition to the > "shock" on May 4. > > Late November 2000 is certainly a busy period at the Sun, with several halo > CMEs (e.g., ~7 fast halos and 2 partial halos in November 24 - 26). Maybe > someone's attempted to make associations with the 1 AU structures, but, we > decided it would be too difficult to come to any sufficiently reliable > conclusion. > > Hope this helps to answer your questions, > > Ian From richardson@lheavx.gsfc.nasa.gov Mon Mar 7 15:29:23 2005 Return-Path: Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by sv01.scs.gmu.edu (8.13.1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j27KTNsC022607 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:29:23 -0500 Received: from Ian.lheavx.gsfc.nasa.gov (particles.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.19.36]) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j27KHj6L026236; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:17:45 -0500 Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.0.20050307144902.01bb3be8@lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov> X-Sender: ianr@lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:16:05 -0500 To: hong@lepvax.gsfc.nasa.gov, Doug Biesecker From: Ian Richardson Subject: Re: Events with unambiguous solar drivers Cc: Webb David F Contr AFRL/VSBX , Nariaki V Nitta , , "'Barbara Thompson'" , Nat Gopalswamy , Ryuho Kataoka , Emilia Huttunen , Alejandro Lara , Angelos Vourlidas , Seiji Yashiro , Chin-Chun Wu , Alexander Nindos , Volker Bothmer , Yang Liu , Justin Kasper , Hong Xie , Vasyl Yurchyshyn , Christophe Marque , Cliver Edward W Civ AFRL/VSBXS , Robert MacDowall , Daniel Berdichevsky , Georgoulis Manolis , Andrei Zhukov , John Steinberg In-Reply-To: References: <422C7B76.4E72BE0F@noaa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.49 on 128.183.16.62 Status: O X-UID: 25373 Content-Length: 2239 X-Keywords: X-Evolution-Source: imap://jiez@mail.scs.gmu.edu/ X-Evolution: 00000008-0110 Hi Hong, Thanks for your contribution to the ongoing debate about May 1998 (though I'm not sure how much more debate there should be if it's deflecting people from preparing data etc for the meeting!). 1) The mention of a shock on May 4, 1403 is puzzling since I can't see such a feature in the in-situ data, and a shock at this time has not been identified in the ACE data (e.g., Chuck Smith's list) or on Daniel's WIND/ISTP list. 2) The strong wave (rather than a strict shock) earlier on this day (~2 UT) was a strong accelerator of particles as it moved out from the Sun, and was continuing to do so at 1 AU (cf. the "spike" in the vicinity of the wave in the SEP plot in the workshop database (directory "richardson"). The May 2, 1406 CME was an extremely powerful accelerator of energetic particles (up to GeV energies) and the interpretation of most people I've heard is that the ~2 UT May 4 shock at 1 AU is linked with this CME. It seems surprising that you associate this energetic event with a 1 AU feature that appears to be hard to identify. (OR, is there a typo somewhere?). 3) The peak of the intense storm is clearly associated with the sheath of this energetic wave, so I would still argue that this is the principle driver of the storm (and hence, with the above association, the May 2 1406 CME). This is not to say that material associated with other CMEs could not also contribute. Regards, Ian At 12:34 PM 3/7/2005, Hong Xie wrote: >Dear Doug, > >Sorry for late response. I just uploaded a recent paper [Xie et al., >IAU226 in press], where we did the case stuty for the May 4 1998 event. >Our analysis showed that shock May 03 17:00 (Fast Forward shock?) is >related to CME May 01 23:40. Shock May 04 02:03 and May 04 14:06 are >related to CME 05/02 05:31 and CME 05/02 14:06, as well as their possible >interaction. Fe charge state data indicated two anomalous high charge >state intervals: the first was realted to CME 04/29 16:58; the second (with >long duration) might be related to successive CME 05/01 23:40, 05/02 05:30 >and 05/02 14:06. > >Thank you, > >Hong > -- Ian Richardson Code 661, GSFC, Greenbelt, MD 20771 (Building 2, Rm 25) Tel: 301-286-3079; Fax: 301-286-1682; From hong@aurora690.gsfc.nasa.gov Mon Mar 7 16:11:56 2005 Return-Path: Received: from mailhost1.gsfc.nasa.gov (mailhost1.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.244.133]) by sv01.scs.gmu.edu (8.13.1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j27LBufq025493 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:11:56 -0500 Received: from aurora690.gsfc.nasa.gov (aurora690.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.169.87]) by mailhost1.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j27KxRdL025940; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:59:27 -0500 Received: from aurora690.gsfc.nasa.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by aurora690.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j27KgZBN013525; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:42:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (hong@localhost) by aurora690.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.12.9/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id j27KgYaG013522; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:42:34 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:42:34 -0500 (EST) From: Hong Xie Reply-To: hong@lepvax.gsfc.nasa.gov To: Ian Richardson cc: Hong Xie , Doug Biesecker , Webb David F Contr AFRL/VSBX , Nariaki V Nitta , , "'Barbara Thompson'" , Nat Gopalswamy , Ryuho Kataoka , Emilia Huttunen , Alejandro Lara , Angelos Vourlidas , Seiji Yashiro , Chin-Chun Wu , Alexander Nindos , Volker Bothmer , Yang Liu , Justin Kasper , Vasyl Yurchyshyn , Christophe Marque , Cliver Edward W Civ AFRL/VSBXS , Robert MacDowall , Daniel Berdichevsky , Georgoulis Manolis , Andrei Zhukov , John Steinberg Subject: Re: Events with unambiguous solar drivers In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20050307144902.01bb3be8@lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Status: O X-UID: 25379 Content-Length: 3271 X-Keywords: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Evolution-Source: imap://jiez@mail.scs.gmu.edu/ X-Evolution: 0000000a-0110 Hi Ian, Related discussion is good for better understanding of the event. Thanks for your reply. The shock idetification in this paper is based on the shock list provided on the link: http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/wind/current_listIPS.htm and also two shocks (or might be strong wave) can be seen on SOHO/CELIAS/MTOF Proton monitor: http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/fig39b.gif at times ~ 2:03 & 2:29. I think the first shock (or strong wave) at ~2:03 is related to CME 05/02 05:30 and the shock at ~2:29 is related to CME 05/02 14:06. They may have merged and interaction near ~1 AU. Thank you, Hong On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Ian Richardson wrote: > Hi Hong, > > Thanks for your contribution to the ongoing debate about May 1998 (though > I'm not sure how much more debate there should be if it's deflecting people > from preparing data etc for the meeting!). > > 1) The mention of a shock on May 4, 1403 is puzzling since I can't see such > a feature in the in-situ data, and a shock at this time has not been > identified in the ACE data (e.g., Chuck Smith's list) or on Daniel's > WIND/ISTP list. > > 2) The strong wave (rather than a strict shock) earlier on this day (~2 UT) > was a strong accelerator of particles as it moved out from the Sun, and was > continuing to do so at 1 AU (cf. the "spike" in the vicinity of the wave in > the SEP plot in the workshop database (directory "richardson"). The May > 2, 1406 CME was an extremely powerful accelerator of energetic particles > (up to GeV energies) and the interpretation of most people I've heard is > that the ~2 UT May 4 shock at 1 AU is linked with this CME. It seems > surprising that you associate this energetic event with a 1 AU feature that > appears to be hard to identify. (OR, is there a typo somewhere?). > > 3) The peak of the intense storm is clearly associated with the sheath of > this energetic wave, so I would still argue that this is the principle > driver of the storm (and hence, with the above association, the May 2 1406 > CME). This is not to say that material associated with other CMEs could > not also contribute. > > Regards, > > Ian > > > > > At 12:34 PM 3/7/2005, Hong Xie wrote: > > >Dear Doug, > > > >Sorry for late response. I just uploaded a recent paper [Xie et al., > >IAU226 in press], where we did the case stuty for the May 4 1998 event. > >Our analysis showed that shock May 03 17:00 (Fast Forward shock?) is > >related to CME May 01 23:40. Shock May 04 02:03 and May 04 14:06 are > >related to CME 05/02 05:31 and CME 05/02 14:06, as well as their possible > >interaction. Fe charge state data indicated two anomalous high charge > >state intervals: the first was realted to CME 04/29 16:58; the second (with > >long duration) might be related to successive CME 05/01 23:40, 05/02 05:30 > >and 05/02 14:06. > > > >Thank you, > > > >Hong > > > > -- > Ian Richardson > Code 661, GSFC, Greenbelt, MD 20771 (Building 2, Rm 25) > Tel: 301-286-3079; Fax: 301-286-1682; > -- Hong Xie Phone: 1-301-213-5864 (c) The Catholic University of America 1-301-286-7027 (o) NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center Fax: 1-301-286-1617 Code 682.3, Greenbelt, MD 20771 Email: hong@lepvax.gsfc.nasa.gov From richardson@lheavx.gsfc.nasa.gov Mon Mar 7 16:44:15 2005 Return-Path: Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by sv01.scs.gmu.edu (8.13.1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j27LiFf1026372 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:44:15 -0500 Received: from Ian.lheavx.gsfc.nasa.gov (particles.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.19.36]) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j27LeQCC003828; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:40:26 -0500 Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.0.20050307162110.01b9bf50@lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov> X-Sender: ianr@lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:38:46 -0500 To: hong@lepvax.gsfc.nasa.gov From: Ian Richardson Subject: Re: Events with unambiguous solar drivers Cc: Hong Xie , Doug Biesecker , Webb David F Contr AFRL/VSBX , Nariaki V Nitta , , "'Barbara Thompson'" , Nat Gopalswamy , Ryuho Kataoka , Emilia Huttunen , Alejandro Lara , Angelos Vourlidas , Seiji Yashiro , Chin-Chun Wu , Alexander Nindos , Volker Bothmer , Yang Liu , Justin Kasper , Vasyl Yurchyshyn , Christophe Marque , Cliver Edward W Civ AFRL/VSBXS , Robert MacDowall , Daniel Berdichevsky , Georgoulis Manolis , Andrei Zhukov , John Steinberg In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.2.0.0.20050307144902.01bb3be8@lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.49 on 128.183.16.62 Status: O X-UID: 25382 Content-Length: 4046 X-Keywords: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Evolution-Source: imap://jiez@mail.scs.gmu.edu/ X-Evolution: 0000000c-0110 Hi Hong, Thanks for the clarification. So my confusion was based on a typo, and the two shocks on May 4 are only separated by 26 minutes (thus there is structure to the "wave"). It does seem reasonable that the second, faster shock is associated with the more energetic 1406 CME. So does the strong Bs driving the storm start with the first or second shock? We'll have to look! Anyhow, it certainly promises to be valuable pooling everyone's expertize on these events next week. Ian At 03:42 PM 3/7/2005, Hong Xie wrote: >Hi Ian, > >Related discussion is good for better understanding of the event. >Thanks for your reply. > >The shock idetification in this paper is based on the shock list provided >on the link: >http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/wind/current_listIPS.htm > >and also two shocks (or might be strong wave) can be seen on >SOHO/CELIAS/MTOF Proton monitor: >http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/fig39b.gif at times ~ 2:03 & 2:29. > >I think the first shock (or strong wave) at ~2:03 is related to CME 05/02 >05:30 and the shock at ~2:29 is related to CME 05/02 14:06. They may have >merged and interaction near ~1 AU. > >Thank you, > >Hong > > >On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Ian Richardson wrote: > > > Hi Hong, > > > > Thanks for your contribution to the ongoing debate about May 1998 (though > > I'm not sure how much more debate there should be if it's deflecting > people > > from preparing data etc for the meeting!). > > > > 1) The mention of a shock on May 4, 1403 is puzzling since I can't see > such > > a feature in the in-situ data, and a shock at this time has not been > > identified in the ACE data (e.g., Chuck Smith's list) or on Daniel's > > WIND/ISTP list. > > > > 2) The strong wave (rather than a strict shock) earlier on this day (~2 > UT) > > was a strong accelerator of particles as it moved out from the Sun, and > was > > continuing to do so at 1 AU (cf. the "spike" in the vicinity of the > wave in > > the SEP plot in the workshop database (directory "richardson"). The May > > 2, 1406 CME was an extremely powerful accelerator of energetic particles > > (up to GeV energies) and the interpretation of most people I've heard is > > that the ~2 UT May 4 shock at 1 AU is linked with this CME. It seems > > surprising that you associate this energetic event with a 1 AU feature > that > > appears to be hard to identify. (OR, is there a typo somewhere?). > > > > 3) The peak of the intense storm is clearly associated with the sheath of > > this energetic wave, so I would still argue that this is the principle > > driver of the storm (and hence, with the above association, the May 2 1406 > > CME). This is not to say that material associated with other CMEs could > > not also contribute. > > > > Regards, > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > > > At 12:34 PM 3/7/2005, Hong Xie wrote: > > > > >Dear Doug, > > > > > >Sorry for late response. I just uploaded a recent paper [Xie et al., > > >IAU226 in press], where we did the case stuty for the May 4 1998 event. > > >Our analysis showed that shock May 03 17:00 (Fast Forward shock?) is > > >related to CME May 01 23:40. Shock May 04 02:03 and May 04 14:06 are > > >related to CME 05/02 05:31 and CME 05/02 14:06, as well as their possible > > >interaction. Fe charge state data indicated two anomalous high charge > > >state intervals: the first was realted to CME 04/29 16:58; the second > (with > > >long duration) might be related to successive CME 05/01 23:40, 05/02 05:30 > > >and 05/02 14:06. > > > > > >Thank you, > > > > > >Hong > > > > > > > -- > > Ian Richardson > > Code 661, GSFC, Greenbelt, MD 20771 (Building 2, Rm 25) > > Tel: 301-286-3079; Fax: 301-286-1682; > > > >-- >Hong Xie Phone: 1-301-213-5864 (c) >The Catholic University of America 1-301-286-7027 (o) >NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center Fax: 1-301-286-1617 >Code 682.3, Greenbelt, MD 20771 Email: hong@lepvax.gsfc.nasa.gov -- Ian Richardson Code 661, GSFC, Greenbelt, MD 20771 (Building 2, Rm 25) Tel: 301-286-3079; Fax: 301-286-1682;