1. Insights into CMEs and Their Substructure(s) SHINE 2018 Session 26 (Wednesday 10:20)
Plenary speakers:
Nat Gopalswamy
Adam Szabo
We explore two key topics:
1)    How well are remotely-sensed heliospheric CME substructures depicted in the overall CME imaging/reconstruction techniques (including when CMEs interact with each other), and how can their topologies be confirmed and/or resolved?
2)    How accurate are in-situ measurements and how well are they extrapolated to remote-observations, particularly those of CME substructures; what do they really tell us about the plasma structure evolution and topologies?
January 4, 2002 CME
May

2. Wednesday 1st August 2018 Session 1: 10:35h-11:50h
Welcome/Opening – Bernie Jackson and Mario Bisi
Remote-Sensing scene-setting talk – Nat Gopalswamy
In-situ scene-setting talk – Adam Szabo
Session 2: 12:05h-13:20h
Short talks/discussion points (~3-minutes each plus open discussions):
Nicole Vilmer
Miho Janvier
Curt DeKoning
Yeimy Rivera
Oyuki Chang
Bernie Jackson
Christine Verbeke
Magnus Haw
Daniel Berdichevsky
Jason Gilbert
Nick Pogorelov
Summary discussions and wrap-up

3. Key Points (1)
Gopal provided a great overview, history (going back to the 1950s/ 1960s), and summary of remote-sensing observations and what they have been able to achieve as well as what’s needed for the future covering X-ray, EUV, white/visible light, and radio wavelengths.
High correlations are present between the flare reconnection flux and the active region flux (over 0.7).
Reconnected (RC) flux (Φr) is same as the poloidal flux (Φp).
ribbons r P
Longcope et al. 2007

4. Key Points (2)
Adam provided a great insight into the complexities of taking in-situ measurements and identifying CME features within them; this is no simple task and not all parameters follow the same patterns for different CMEs and the need for constellations…
Individual B-field components tend to fit better than B – but good progress being made with elliptical flux-rope fits over the traditional circular flux-rope fits.
Nieves-Chinchilla, et al., ApJ., 861:130, 2018
Kahler et al., 2011

5. Key Points (3)
It was notable that the modelers tend to do the best job at bringing together the remote-sensing and in-situ data.
There’s a need for observers/data types to start to do this more often and use the remote-sensing instrumentation to complete the observational picture between measurement points.
Better use of available remote-sensing data sets is needed in general to bring all the observing regimes together (e.g. radio).
More-detailed remote-sensing (higher spatial and temporal cadence) imagery/data sets are needed – particularly in terms of being able to image CMEs more clearly so as to resolve the smaller structures.
Future could include wider-angle EUV imagery.
Better heliospheric imagers and use of their data.
The need for in-situ constellations at the right spacing to be able to measure much more of the 3-D structure of CMEs as they pass over the spacecraft.
This is important to be able to start to understand why there are sometimes big differences in CME properties.

6. Key Points (4)
We are starting to be able to obtain B values for CMEs very-close to the Sun using novel radio techniques.
Noticing that symmetry within CMEs seems to be higher in slow CMEs rather than in fast CMEs, so this makes the more-important fast CMEs more difficult for the forecasters.
Speculations over the core of flux ropes having higher ion charge states and these could be used to better understand where and how the CME is crossing over the in-situ spacecraft instrumentation.
Empirical modelling using ion distributions suggest some early signs of CME substructure within ejecta can be modelled now.
Complications though where some CMEs appear with slow solar wind properties.
Polarized white-light imaging could potentially better resolve overlapping structures imaged in interplanetary space.
Instrumentation knowledge is key!