Remote and in situ observations of an unusual Earth-directed coronal mass ejection from multiple viewpoints

Abstract

During June 16-21, 2010, an Earth-directed coronal mass ejection (CME) event was observed by instruments onboard STEREO, SOHO, MESSENGER and Wind. This event was the first direct detection of a rotating CME in the middle and outer corona. Here, we carry out a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of the CME in the interplanetary medium comparing in situ and remote observations, with analytical models and three-dimensional reconstructions. In particular, we investigate the parallel and perpendicular cross section expansion of the CME from the corona through the heliosphere up to 1 AU. We use height-time measurements and the Gradual Cylindrical Shell (GCS) technique to model the imaging observations, remove the projection effects, and derive the 3-dimensional extent of the event. Then, we compare the results with in situ analytical Magnetic Cloud (MC) models, and with geometrical predictions from past works. We find that the parallel (along the propagation plane) cross section expansion agrees well with the in situ model and with the Bothmer and Schwenn (1998) empirical relationship based on in situ observations between 0.3 and 1 AU. Our results effectively extend this empirical relationship to about 5 solar radii. The expansion of the perpendicular diameter agrees very well with the in situ results at MESSENGER (∼0.5 AU) but not at 1 AU. We also find a slightly different, from Bothmer and Schwenn (1998), empirical relationship for the perpendicular expansion. More importantly, we find no evidence that the CME undergoes a significant latitudinal over-expansion as it is commonly assumed. Instead, we find evidence that effects due to CME rotation and expansion can be easily confused in the images leading to a severe overestimation of the proper 3D size of the event. Finally, we find that the reconstructions of the CME morphology from the in situ observations at 1 AU are in agreement with the remote sensing observations but they show a big discrepancy at MESSENGER. We attribute this discrepancy to the ambiguity of selecting the proper boundaries due to the lack of accompanying plasma measurements. © 2012. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.