5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 1 Comparison between the arrival times predicted using the HAFv.2 model of flare related particles/shocks.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory SHINE 2005, July 11-15, 2005 Transient Shocks and Associated Energetic Particle Events Observed.
Advertisements

Hot Precursor Ejecta and Other Peculiarities of the 2012 May 17 Ground Level Enhancement Event N. Gopalswamy 2, H. Xie 1,2, N. V. Nitta 3, I. Usoskin 4,
Flare Luminosity and the Relation to the Solar Wind and the Current Solar Minimum Conditions Roderick Gray Research Advisor: Dr. Kelly Korreck.
Interaction of coronal mass ejections with large-scale structures N. Gopalswamy, S. Yashiro, H. Xie, S. Akiyama, and P. Mäkelä IHY – ISWI Regional meeting.
Reviewing the Summer School Solar Labs Nicholas Gross.
ESS 7 Lecture 14 October 31, 2008 Magnetic Storms
1 Diagnostics of Solar Wind Processes Using the Total Perpendicular Pressure Lan Jian, C. T. Russell, and J. T. Gosling How does the magnetic structure.
Intense Flares Without Solar Energetic Particle Events N. V. Nitta (LMSAL), E. W. Cliver (AFRL), H. S. Hudson (UCB) Abstract: We study favorably located.
Solar Activities and Halloween Storms Ahmed Hady Astronomy Department Cairo University, Egypt.
CISM solar wind metrics M.J. Owens and the CISM Validation and Metrics Team Boston University, Boston MA Abstract. The Center for Space-Weather Modeling.
When will disruptive CMEs impact Earth? Coronagraph observations alone aren’t enough to make the forecast for the most geoeffective halo CMEs. In 2002,
DOPPLER DOPPLER A Space Weather Doppler Imager Mission Concept Exploration Science Objectives What are the most relevant observational signatures of flare,
Study of magnetic helicity in solar active regions: For a better understanding of solar flares Sung-Hong Park Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research New.
Identifying Interplanetary Shock Parameters in Heliospheric MHD Simulation Results S. A. Ledvina 1, D. Odstrcil 2 and J. G. Luhmann 1 1.Space Sciences.
The nature of impulsive solar energetic particle events N. V. Nitta a, H. S. Hudson b, M. L. Derosa a a Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory.
F1B: Determine the Dominant Processes of Particle Acceleration Phase , Open the Frontier UV Spectroscopic determin- ation of pre/post-shock density,
Sung-Hong Park Space Weather Research Laboratory New Jersey Institute of Technology Study of Magnetic Helicity and Its Relationship with Solar Activities:
Coronal and Heliospheric Modeling of the May 12, 1997 MURI Event MURI Project Review, NASA/GSFC, MD, August 5-6, 2003 Dusan Odstrcil University of Colorado/CIRES.
The “cone model” was originally developed by Zhao et al. ~10 (?) years ago in order to interpret the times of arrival of ICME ejecta following SOHO LASCO.
EFFECTS of the TERRESTRIAL MAGNETOSPHERE on RADIATION HAZARD on MOON MISSIONS R. Koleva, B. Tomov, T. Dachev, Yu. Matviichuk, Pl. Dimitrov, Space and Solar-Terrestrial.
Predictions of Solar Wind Speed and IMF Polarity Using Near-Real-Time Solar Magnetic Field Updates C. “Nick” Arge University of Colorado/CIRES & NOAA/SEC.
RT Modelling of CMEs Using WSA- ENLIL Cone Model
High-Cadence EUV Imaging, Radio, and In-Situ Observations of Coronal Shocks and Energetic Particles: Implications for Particle Acceleration K. A. Kozarev.
The Sun and the Heliosphere: some basic concepts…
Numerical simulations are used to explore the interaction between solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and the structured, ambient global solar wind flow.
Computer Simulations in Solar System Physics Mats Holmström Swedish Institute of Space Physics (IRF) Forskarskolan i rymdteknik Göteborg 12 September 2005.
Exploration Physics International, Inc. HAF: An Operational, Event-driven Solar Wind Forecast Model 1 Murray Dryer
Evolution of the 2012 July 12 CME from the Sun to the Earth: Data- Constrained Three-Dimensional MHD Simulations F. Shen 1, C. Shen 2, J. Zhang 3, P. Hess.
Decay Phase of Proton and Electron SEP Events E.I. Daibog 1, K. Kecskeméty 2, Yu.I. Logachev 1 1 Skobeltsyn Inst. of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State Univ.,
Locating the solar source of 13 April 2006 Magnetic Cloud K. Steed 1, C. J. Owen 1, L. K. Harra 1, L. M. Green 1, S. Dasso 2, A. P. Walsh 1, P. Démoulin.
System for Radiation Environment characterization (fluxes, doses, dose equivalents at Earth, Moon and Mars) on hourly thru yearly time frame Example: Snapshots.
1 THE RELATION BETWEEN CORONAL EIT WAVE AND MAGNETIC CONFIGURATION Speakers: Xin Chen
Space Weather from Coronal Holes and High Speed Streams M. Leila Mays (NASA/GSFC and CUA) SW REDISW REDI 2014 June 2-13.
195 Å image – behind 195 Å image – Sun- Earth line – SOHO/ EIT image 195 Å image – Sun- Earth line – SOHO/ EIT image 195 Å image – ahead SECCHI Extreme.
Arrival time of halo coronal mass ejections In the vicinity of the Earth G. Michalek, N. Gopalswamy, A. Lara, and P.K. Manoharan A&A 423, (2004)
SHINE SEP Campaign Events: Long-term development of solar corona in build-up to the SEP events of 21 April 2002 and 24 August 2002 A. J. Coyner, D. Alexander,
Solar Wind and Coronal Mass Ejections
Ed Stone Symposium February 11, 2006 Voyager Observations of Galactic and Anomalous Cosmic Rays in the Heliosheath F.B. M c Donald 1, W.R. Webber 2, E.C.
Extremely Fast Coronal Mass Ejection on 23 July Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland,20723, USA 2 NOAA Space Weather.
SHINE SEP Campaign Events: Detailed comparison of active regions AR9906 and AR0069 in the build-up to the SEP events of 21 Apr 2002 and 24 Aug 2002 D.
Lessons for STEREO - learned from Helios Presented at the STEREO/Solar B Workshop, Rainer Schwenn, MPS Lindau The Helios.
Interplanetary Shocks in the Inner Solar System: Observations with STEREO and MESSENGER During the Deep Solar Minimum of 2008 H.R. Lai, C.T. Russell, L.K.
The Space Weather Week Monique Pick LESIA, Observatoire de Paris November 2006.
What we can learn from the intensity-time profiles of large gradual solar energetic particle events (LGSEPEs) ? Guiming Le(1, 2,3), Yuhua Tang(3), Liang.
Global Structure of the Inner Solar Wind and it's Dynamic in the Solar Activity Cycle from IPS Observations with Multi-Beam Radio Telescope BSA LPI Chashei.
CASS/UCSD ILWS 2009 SMEI 3D reconstructions of density behind shocks B.V. Jackson, P.P. Hick, A. Buffington, M.M. Bisi, J.M. Clover, S. Hamilton Center.
Modeling 3-D Solar Wind Structure Lecture 13. Why is a Heliospheric Model Needed? Space weather forecasts require us to know the solar wind that is interacting.
SEP Event Onsets: Far Backside Solar Sources and the East-West Hemispheric Asymmetry S. W. Kahler AFRL Space Vehicles Directorate, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico,
Radio and Space Plasma Physics Group Tracking solar wind structures from the Sun through to the orbit of Mars A.O. Williams 1, N.J.T. Edberg 1,2, S.E.
Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive #0424, La Jolla, CA , U.S.A
Heliospheric Simulations of the SHINE Campaign Events SHINE Workshop, Big Sky, MT, June 27 – July 2, 2004 Dusan Odstrcil 1,2 1 University of Colorado/CIRES,
SEPT/STEREO Observations of Upstream Particle Events: Almost Monoenergetic Ion Beams A. Klassen, R. Gomez-Herrero, R. Mueller-Mellin and SEPT Team, G.
Analysis of 3 and 8 April 2010 Coronal Mass Ejections and their Influence on the Earth Magnetic Field Marilena Mierla and SECCHI teams at ROB, USO and.
Multi-Point Observations of The Solar Corona for Space weather Acknowledgements The forecasting data was retrieved from NOAA SWPC products and SIDC PRESTO.
1 Test Particle Simulations of Solar Energetic Particle Propagation for Space Weather Mike Marsh, S. Dalla, J. Kelly & T. Laitinen University of Central.
Earth’s Magnetosphere Space Weather Training Kennedy Space Center Space Weather Research Center.
1 Pruning of Ensemble CME modeling using Interplanetary Scintillation and Heliospheric Imager Observations A. Taktakishvili, M. L. Mays, L. Rastaetter,
Interplanetary proton and electron enhancements associated with radio-loud and radio-quiet CME-driven shocks P. Mäkelä 1,2, N. Gopalswamy 2, H. Xie 1,2,
Detecting, forecasting and modeling of the 2002/04/17 halo CME Heliophysics Summer School 1.
An Introduction to Observing Coronal Mass Ejections
Driving 3D-MHD codes Using the UCSD Tomography
Introduction to Space Weather Interplanetary Transients
Evolution of solar wind structures between Venus and Mars orbits
D. Odstrcil1,2, V.J. Pizzo2, C.N. Arge3, B.V.Jackson4, P.P. Hick4
Solar Flare Energy Partition into Energetic Particle Acceleration
Exploring Large-scale Coronal Magnetic Field Over Extended Longitudes With EUVI EUVI B EIT EUVI A 23-Mar UT Nariaki Nitta, Marc DeRosa, Jean-Pierre.
Corona Mass Ejection (CME) Solar Energetic Particle Events
Forbush Decreases and Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections at Earth and Mars Mark Lester1, Beatriz Sanchez-Cano1, Emma Thomas1, Adam Langeveld1, Jingnan.
ESS 261 Topics in magnetospheric physics Space weather forecast models ____ the prediction of solar wind speed April 23, 2008.
Physics 320: Interplanetary Space and the Heliosphere (Lecture 24)
Presentation transcript:

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 1 Comparison between the arrival times predicted using the HAFv.2 model of flare related particles/shocks associated with the disk passage of Active Region 0930 in December 2006 and the measured arrival times of these disturbances at Earth, Mars and Venus S.M.P. McKenna-Lawlor 1, M.Dryer 2,3, C.D. Fry 2, Z. Smith 3, M. D. Kartalev 4, W. Sun 5, C. S. Deehr 5, K. Kecskemety 6, K. Kudela 7, S. Barabash 8, Y. Futaana 8, R. Lundin 8 and R. Courtney 9 1 Space Technology Ireland, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland ( ; ). 2 Exploration Physics International, Inc., Huntsville, Alabama, 35806, USA. 3 NOAA Space Environment Center, Boulder, Colorado, 80305, USA. 4 Institute of Mechanics, Academy of Sciences, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria. 5 Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99775, USA. 6 KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, Budapest, Hungary. 7 Institute of Experimental Physics, Kosice, Slovakia. 8 Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Kiruna, Sweden 9 Space Operations Centre, Air Force Weather Agency, Omaha AFB, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 2 Active NOAA Region No which transited the solar east limb on 5 December, 2006 (S06 o, ~E90 o ), was associated during its disk passage in the minimum phase of Solar Cycle 23 with the production of significant solar flares, energetic particles and coronal mass ejections. The predicted arrivals at the Earth (1 AU), Mars and Venus of shocks generated during four of these events in December, 2007 were estimated using the Hakamada-Akasofu-Fry version 2 (HAFv.2) model and compared with in-situ observations recorded at each of the planets. Correspondences found between the predicted and observed arrival times of these particle/shock signatures at particular spacecraft are discussed in the context of developing capability to forecast the arrival of solar disturbances at different locations within the heliosphere Correspondences found between the predicted and observed arrival times of these particle/shock signatures at particular spacecraft are discussed in the context of developing capability to forecast the arrival of solar disturbances at different locations within the heliosphere.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 3 The HAFv.2 Model provides real-time operational forecasts of the disturbance- driven solar wind through employing a modified kinematic approach to simulate SW conditions. In this scenario, fluid parcels are emitted along radials from the rotating Sun. The spatial distribution of speed on the Sun-centered, spherical inner boundary is non-uniform. The speeds of the particles along a particular radial consequently vary as higher and lower-speed streams sweep past a particular radial as the Sun rotates. If magnetic flux conservation and a highly conducting solar wind plasma are each assumed, this leads to a frozen-in field condition which prohibits higher-speed streams from overtaking streams with slower speeds. Solar wind acceleration/deceleration is accounted for by introducing a set of parametric equations. Internal algorithms adjust fluid parcel positions to account for fast stream-slow stream interactions, compression of the plasma and evolution of the IMF. For details see Hakamada and Akasofu (1982) Note that the internal free parameters of the model were set following an early calibration with 1-D and 2-D MHD models/empirical studies and these are held constant (Fry et al., 2007).

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 4 Potential Field Source Surface (PFSS) maps provide solar wind speed and radial magnetic field on the HAFv.2 inner boundary [See Wang and Sheely (1990); Arge and Pizzo (2000)]. Proxy parameters for significant disturbance drivers are solar optical, X-ray and radio events that are accompanied by a reported shock (or CME) with a speed of at least 400 km/s. INDIVIDUAL EVENT PARAMETERS Optical/X-ray Event start time (taken to be within 0.5 h of the accompanying shock start) Disk location of the parent solar event Event duration (piston driving time of shock: determined from the GOES soft X-ray profile of the flare) Shock start (determined from metric Type II radio burst data) Initial speed (Vs) of the shock near the Sun (estimated from reported metric Type II speed, or plane of the sky CME speed)

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 5 In the terminology of predictive modeling, the performance of a model in predicting shock arrivals is expressed in the following terms: HIT:Shock predicted and observed to arrive at a particular heliospheric location within ±24 h of its observed detection time. MISS: Shock detected at a particular heliospheric location but predicted to arrive at a time more than 24 h before or after this detection, or predicted not to arrive at all. FALSE Shock predicted to arrive, but not detected, within a ALARM window of 1-5 days (Earth) following a particular solar event. CORRECT Shock neither predicted nor detected at a particular heliospheric NULL location within a window of 1-5 days (Earth) following a particular solar event.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 6 Interacting Events Temporally close shocks can potentially interact. In the simplest case involving two interacting events, the predicted arrival of the second shock is either at the same time, or earlier, than that of the preceding event. To take account of such a pair of interacting shocks, the definitions presented previously are modified. As before each shock is assigned a hit (h), miss (m), correct null (cn), false alarm (fa) and correct null (cn) classification. However, only one hit is recorded and the contributing event is assigned to the category ‘correct null’. For the present paper, the arrival times at Earth, Venus and Mars of flare related shocks identified exiting the Sun (using metric radio burst drift data) during the disk passage of Active Region No were forecast in near-real time using the Hakamada-Akasofu-Fry Model, version-2/(HAFv.2). These predictions are compared with the measured arrivals at L1, Mars and Venus of shocks recorded in plasma and magnetic data aboard the ACE, SOHO, Mars Express, Venus Express and GOES spacecraft. The influence of interplanetary conditions in determining the outcome at individual planetary targets is discussed having regard to the prevailing geometry. East Limb Passage of Active Region No. 0950

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 7 (Top left) East limb passage of Active Region 0490 recorded aboard TRACE. (Top right) Full disk magnetogram recorded by the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) aboard SOHO. (Bottom) MDI Potential Field Source Surface plot showing field lines out to 2.5 Rs.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 8 (Top right) An X9 flare at S07, E79 was recorded aboard GOES 12 on December 5 ( UT), followed on December 6 ( UT at S 04 E 64 by a further X 6.5 flare. (Bottom right) shows gradually rising protons recorded aboard GOES 11. GOES X-rays GOES protons

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 9 Particle profile (protons) recorded by the EPHIN instrument aboard SOHO of a (relatively rare) increase in protons up to MeV energies associated with the east limb flares in Region 0490.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 10 The flare of December 5 ( UT) was accompanied by a Type II metre wave burst with shock velocity 836 km/s. (Station SVI/San Vito, Italy). The later flare of December 6 ( UT) was accompanied by a further Type II burst with shock velocity 2000 km/s (Rec. aboard STEREO/ WAVES, private communication ).

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 11 Magnetic, energetic proton and solar wind data recorded aboard ACE during December, 2006 (Top panel) note the arrival of a shock in MAG data at UT on December 7. The SWEPAM/SW Level 1 data (density, vel. temp) are unreliable from ~ UT, December 7 until ~16.00 UT on December 8 and again on 13 December 13 ( ~ UT) due to the prevailing high proton background (snowstorm- effect). Note that a second shock arrived on December 14 at UT and a third shock on December 16 at UT

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 12 On December 13 an X3.4 flare occurred in the same active region (at S06, W23) See the GOES 11 and GOES 12 X-ray fluxes (left) and EIT picture of the flare location (right)

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 13 A well defined proton enhancement (> 50 MeV protons) on December 13 indicates that the magnetic field was well connected on this day.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 14 An associated metric Type II burst was recorded at Learmonth (1534 km/s). LASCO reported a full disk, asymmetric halo event (seen here projected from behind the occulting disk). Also a partial halo (> 120 o ) was projected out of the ecliptic plane.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 15 A shock associated with the December 13 flare arrived at L1 at UT on December 14. Solar wind speeds increased from 600 to approx. 950 km/s. The Bz component oscillated from + 15 nT to – 15 nT between UT (shock compression of the IMF in front of a magnetic cloud). From UT the Bz component was uniformly north (maximum deflection ~ 15 nT). It then shifted (uniform deflection ~ 18 nT) and the field remained open until about UT on December 15 as the magnetic cloud moved through.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 16 An X 1.5 flare ( UT) occurred on December 14 (S06.W36). An associated metric Type II burst was recorded at Culgoora (1600 km/s).

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 17 A proton event which was an order of magnitude weaker than in the case of the previous flare (max flux 13 pfu at E > 50 MeV ) occurred. Also an asymmetric full halo was reported by LASCO

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 18 A weak shock and magnetic cloud reached L1 in association with the flare of December 14 at ~ UT on December 16. Solar wind speeds increased from 550 km/s to ~ 750 km/s and BT increased to ~ 10 nT. The Bz deflections were mostly to the north throughout the enhanced period and there was, thus, a general lack of connectivity.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 19 Modeling of Shock Arrival at L1 (HAFv2 SW model)

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 20 Modeling of Shock Arrival at L1 (HAFv2 SW model) continued

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 21 HAFv.2 Predictions The HAFv.2 model indicated that disturbances associated with the X9 and the X6.5 flares on December 5 and 6 interacted with each other to produce a composite shock that was predicted to arrive at L1 on December 7 at UT. A shock was recorded in ACE data on December 8 at UT, some 20 hours late but within the period of ± 24 hours considered to constitute a “hit” in making such predictions. On December 14, a shock predicted by HAFv.2 to arrive at UT was detected at UT in ACE data (hit). On December 16 a shock predicted to arrive at UT was recorded in ACE data at UT about 5.5 hours late (hit).

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 22 Locations of the inner planets relative to the Sun during December 2006

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 23 Measurements at Venus and Mars The ASPERA 3 and ASPERA 4 instruments aboard Mars Express (MEX) and Venus Express (VEX) are each composed of four similar instruments NPI (Neutral Particle Imager) measures the integral energetic neutral atom (ENA) flux with no mass and energy resolution but with high angular resolution. NPD (Neutral Particle Detector) resolves mass (hydrogen and oxygen) and velocity (energy range keV) of the ENA. EIS (Electron and Ion Spectrometer) determines the electron and ion distributions at energies up to 40 keV IMA (Mass resolving Ion Analyser) measures the main ion components (H+, H2+, He+, O+), molecular ions from 20 to 80 amu/q and up to 106 amu/q for dusty plasmas in the energy range from 100 eV to 40 keV/q.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 24 Aboard MEX, ASPERA-3 data are typically recorded close to the Bow Shock crossings in 3-4 hour intervals. On VEX, ASPERA-4 observations are typically made 60 min before and after the inbound and outbound bow shock crossings. Since VEX only observes at pericenter there is a data gap of about 20 hours between measurement sets.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 25 Ecliptic plane plots generated by HAFv.2 showing solar wind conditions at Earth, Mars and Venus. IMF pattern: toward field lines (blue); away field lines (red).

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 26 The largest flare in the sequence (X9/FF 663) began on December 5 at ~ 10:34 UT. Neither ASPERA-3 or 4 were functioning at this time. However, ASPERA-3 detected an extremely high background level of ions and electrons at Mars from 14:00 UT when the next sequence of spacecraft operations was initiated. This enhancement endured for at least 3 days (i.e. spanning the occurrence of the X6.5/FF 664 flare of December 06 at ~ UT and was present until Mars entered an ‘away’ sector.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 27 On December 8 the eastern flank of interacting FF events 663 and 664 was predicted by HAFv.2 to arrive at Venus between UT. Put in Ghee pictures for December 8

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 28 There was a gap in the ASPERA-4 observations from December 07 at to December 08 at UT and the shock was not observed in the data recorded thereafter. However, following UT time the background ions were found to have substantially increased in energy since the previous day

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 29 The HAFv.2 model predicted that, on December 20 at UT, the shock accompanying FF event 666 overtook that of event 665 just as the western flank of these interacting shocks reached Mars There was also a field reversal at this time

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 30 The ASPERA-3 ion data show a signature of heating between December 19 (23:45UT) and December 20 (04:00UT), indicating the arrival during that interval at Mars of an interplanetary shock. The arrival time of this shock is in good conformity with the prediction of HAFv.2. By December 21 the solar wind had recovered to a cool beam.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 31 Conclusion HAFv.2 has previously been shown to provide useful predictions of shock arrivals at Earth (e.g. Fry et al., 2003, McKenna-Lawlor et al., 2006) and, in the present case the model has provided predictive hits with regard to shock arrivals measured at L1 in association with the flares of December 5, 6, 13 and 14, Consideration of HAFv.2 predictions in relation to in situ measurements made at Mars by ASPERA-3, again suggest the usefulness of these predictions in the case of an event on December 20 when the Earth and Mars were located on opposite sides of the Sun. A prediction by HAFv.2 of the arrival of a shock at Venus required more continuous observations than were available in ASPERA-4 data to monitor its arrival. A hint of a possible in situ response to the predicted disturbance may be contained in the presence in ASPERA-4 data later on the day concerned of a significantly enhanced particle background.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 32 Conclusion continued A reasonably accurate description of pre-event heliospheric conditions made by utilizing the PFSS method and the HAFv.2 code is now to hand. A full 3D MHD global description of conditions at the Sun which will provide improved pre-event simulations is awaited. Definitive validation of predictive models at Venus and Mars requires for their implementation continuous observations at these planets.

5th SECCHI Meeting LAL, Orsay, France. March 5-8, 2007 page 33