Implications of Using Spheroidal “Cone Model” CMEs in Solar‐Wind Models

Abstract Space‐weather forecasting requires advanced prediction of the arrival time and properties of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) in near‐Earth space. Kinematic properties of CMEs close to the Sun—such as speed, direction and angular width—are routinely estimated from coronagraph images by using three‐dimensional geometric models, such as the “cone model.” These are used to characterize a time‐dependent perturbation at the inner boundary of a numerical solar‐wind model, normally at 0.1 AU, enabling a forecast of the CME arrival time and speed at Earth. This perturbation is typically spheroidal in shape. In this study we show that spheroidal CMEs exhibit four features inconsistent with observations that may limit the accuracy of space‐weather forecasts: 1, Slow spheroidal CMEs intersect the model inner boundary for a long duration and hence resist acceleration by the ambient solar wind, producing longer transit times than observed; 2, The radial extent of a spheroidal CME is directly related to its angular width. Observations of CMEs at 1 AU do not display any relation between angular width and radial extent; 3, Fast‐and‐wide CMEs cannot be sufficiently decelerated by the ambient solar wind and arrive with higher speeds than observed; 4, Spheroidal CMEs show different magnitudes of interplanetary accelerations for different angular widths, contrary to observations. We show that fixing the CME duration at the inner boundary—which mimics observed CME expansion—alleviates these problems. The choice of fixed duration is a free parameter that needs to be calibrated against observations, but 8 hr works reasonably well.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Space Weather
Published
2025-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2025sw004397
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Solar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.46

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Implications of Using Spheroidal “Cone Model” CMEs in Solar‐Wind Models

Luke Barnard, M. J. Owens, M. Lockwood, Harriet Turner et al.
3 citations
Space Weather
Solar and Space Plasma Dynamics
3.46
article

Implications of Using Spheroidal “Cone Model” CMEs in Solar‐Wind Models

Luke Barnard, M. J. Owens, M. Lockwood, Harriet Turner, C. Verbeke, Yutian Chi, Blair McGinness, Dechen Lhamo Gyeltshen
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Abstract Space‐weather forecasting requires advanced prediction of the arrival time and properties of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) in near‐Earth space. Kinematic properties of CMEs close to the Sun—such as speed, direction and angular width—are routinely estimated from coronagraph images by using three‐dimensional geometric models, such as the “cone model.” These are used to characterize a time‐dependent perturbation at the inner boundary of a numerical solar‐wind model, normally at 0.1 AU, enabling a forecast of the CME arrival time and speed at Earth. This perturbation is typically spheroidal in shape. In this study we show that spheroidal CMEs exhibit four features inconsistent with observations that may limit the accuracy of space‐weather forecasts: 1, Slow spheroidal CMEs intersect the model inner boundary for a long duration and hence resist acceleration by the ambient solar wind, producing longer transit times than observed; 2, The radial extent of a spheroidal CME is directly related to its angular width. Observations of CMEs at 1 AU do not display any relation between angular width and radial extent; 3, Fast‐and‐wide CMEs cannot be sufficiently decelerated by the ambient solar wind and arrive with higher speeds than observed; 4, Spheroidal CMEs show different magnitudes of interplanetary accelerations for different angular widths, contrary to observations. We show that fixing the CME duration at the inner boundary—which mimics observed CME expansion—alleviates these problems. The choice of fixed duration is a free parameter that needs to be calibrated against observations, but 8 hr works reasonably well.

Space WeatherVol. 23(6)
Goddard Space Flight Center (US), Heliophysics (US), Space Engineering University (CN), University of Reading (GB), KU Leuven (BE)
Natural Environment Research Council, Science and Technology Facilities Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Solar and Space Plasma Dynamics
3.46
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.