Difference between revisions of "01/08/2014-01/09/2014"
(→Comment Section) |
(→Comment Section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Comment Section= | =Comment Section= | ||
*This event has been included because it has a very strong Halo CME entering LASCO around 17:48 UT on the 7th, but presents no obvious in-situ signatures at L1. (Hess) | *This event has been included because it has a very strong Halo CME entering LASCO around 17:48 UT on the 7th, but presents no obvious in-situ signatures at L1. (Hess) | ||
| + | This is thus a “problem” event and is being studied for an AGU session. N. Gopalswamy reports that the January 6 and 7 CMEs are quite intriguing. The Jan. 6 event produced a GLE even though it had a speed <2000 km/s and originated behind the west limb (Thakur et al., ApJ, 2014). The Jan. 7 CME was near disk center and ultrafast (~3000 km/s), but was likely deflected to the south and west so it was not geoefffective although it was a large SEP event. It was also not a GLE. | ||
=Image Data= | =Image Data= | ||
Revision as of 09:31, 24 September 2014
Comment Section
- This event has been included because it has a very strong Halo CME entering LASCO around 17:48 UT on the 7th, but presents no obvious in-situ signatures at L1. (Hess)
This is thus a “problem” event and is being studied for an AGU session. N. Gopalswamy reports that the January 6 and 7 CMEs are quite intriguing. The Jan. 6 event produced a GLE even though it had a speed <2000 km/s and originated behind the west limb (Thakur et al., ApJ, 2014). The Jan. 7 CME was near disk center and ultrafast (~3000 km/s), but was likely deflected to the south and west so it was not geoefffective although it was a large SEP event. It was also not a GLE.
