A summary of WIND magnetic clouds for years 1995-2003: model-fitted parameters, associated errors and classifications

By R. Lepping, D. Berdichevsky, C. Wu, Á. Szabó, T. Narock, F. Mariani, A. Lazarus, A. Quivers. 2006

193 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract. Interplanetary magnetic clouds (MCs) have been identified for the first 8.6 years of the WIND mission, and their magnetic field structures have been parameter-fitted by a static, force free, cylindrically-symmetric model (Lepping et al., 1990) with various levels of success. This paper summarizes various aspects of the results of the model fitting by providing: seven estimated model fit-parameter values for each of the 82 MCs found, their objectively determined quality estimates, closest approach vectors (in two coordinate frames), fit-parameter errors for the cases of acceptable quality (50 cases, or 61%), axial magnetic fluxes, axial current densities, and total axial current - as well as some examples of MC profiles for various conditions and "categories" for each case (e.g. Bz: N→S or S→N, etc.). MC quality is estimated from a quantitative consideration of a large set of parameters, such as the chi-squared of the model fit, degree of asymmetry of the B profile, and a comparison of two means of estimating radius. This set of MCs was initially identified by visual inspection of relevant field and plasma data. Each resulting MC candidate is then tested through the use of the MC parameter model, for various adjusted durations to determine the best fit, which helps to refine the boundary-times. The resulting MC set is called Set 1. Another, larger, set (Set 2) of MCs is identified through an automated program whose criteria are based on general MC plasma and field characteristics at 1AU determined through past experience. Set 1 is almost fully contained within Set 2, whose frequency of occurrence better matches that of the sunspot cycle than Set 1. The difference-set (Set 2-Set 1) is referred to as the magnetic cloud-like (MCL) set, whose members do not very well represent good flux ropes through modeling. We present a discussion of how a MC's front boundary is specifically identified in terms of multi-parameter considerations (i.e. any one or more of: increase in B, directional discontinuity, magnetic hole in B, drop in proton plasma beta, B-fluctuation level change, proton temperature drop, etc.), as well as through the application of the flux rope model. Also presented are examples of unusual MCs, as well as some commonly occurring relationships, such as the existence and frequency (approx. 1/2 the time) of upstream interplanetary shocks, and less frequent internal shocks.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4562fa919c6932908b59575d7c64bd122bcc2fe3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

1. Nat Gopalswamy
2. B. Vršnak
3. M. Temmer
4. N. Lugaz
5. S. Yashiro
6. S. Akiyama
7. W. Manchester IV
8. Pete Riley

Citations in the corpus

• Geoeffectiveness of halo coronal mass ejections (2007, background): “Such situations are not uncommon: about 15–20% of the magnetic clouds in cycle 23 had fully northward axial field [Lepping et al., 2006; Gopalswamy et al., 2007].”
• The Physical Processes of CME/ICME Evolution (2017, background): “Magnetic clouds are also distinguished by their large-scale, and their passage past the Earth that may last 7 to 48 hours, with an average of approximately 21 hours (Lepping et al. 2006).”
• Altered solar wind-magnetosphere interaction at low Mach numbers: Coronal mass ejections (2008, methodology): “…A pr 2 00 9 In section 3.1 we use the hourly-averaged OMNI-2 solar wind dataset [King and Papitashvili, 2005], together with lists of intervals of coronal mass ejections [Cane and Richardson, 2003], magnetic clouds [e.g., Lepping et al., 2006], high-speed streams, and global sawtooth oscillations.”
• Corotating solar wind streams and recurrent geomagnetic activity: A review (2006, background): “Magnetic clouds are believed to be giant flux ropes because of their strong north-then-south Bz configurations (or vice versa) [Lepping et al., 1990, 2006].”
• Long-duration magnetic clouds: a comparison of analyses using torus- and cylinder-shaped flux rope models (2007, methodology): “Secondly, the estimation of the flux rope radius directly affects the estimation of physical quantities, such as magnetic flux and magnetic helicity carried away from the Sun by the MC (Green et al., 2002; Nindos et al., 2003; Leamon et al., 2004; Lynch et al., 2005; Lepping et al., 2006).”