Source author record

Luke A. Barnard

Luke A. Barnard appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Why are ELEvoHI CME arrival predictions different if based on STEREO-A or STEREO-B heliospheric imager observations?

Accurate forecasting of the arrival time and arrival speed of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) is a unsolved problem in space weather research. In this study, a comparison of the predicted arrival times and speeds for each CME based, independently, on the inputs from the two STEREO vantage points is carried out. We perform hindcasts using ELlipse Evolution model based on Heliospheric Imager observations (ELEvoHI) ensemble modelling. An estimate of the ambient solar wind conditions is obtained by the Wang-Sheeley-Arge/Heliospheric Upwind eXtrapolation (WSA/HUX) model combination that serves as input to ELEvoHI. We carefully select 12 CMEs between February 2010 and July 2012 that show clear signatures in both STEREO-A and STEREO-B HI time-elongation maps, that propagate close to the ecliptic plane, and that have corresponding in situ signatures at Earth. We find a mean arrival time difference of 6.5 hrs between predictions from the two different viewpoints, which can reach up to 9.5 hrs for individual CMEs, while the mean arrival speed difference is 63 km s$^{-1}$. An ambient solar wind with a large speed variance leads to larger differences in the STEREO-A and STEREO-B CME arrival time predictions ($cc~=~0.92$). Additionally, we compare the predicted arrivals, from both spacecraft, to the actual in situ arrivals at Earth and find a mean absolute error of 7.5 $\pm$ 9.5 hrs for the arrival time and 87 $\pm$ 111 km s$^{-1}$ for the arrival speed. There is no tendency for one spacecraft to provide more accurate arrival predictions than the other.

preprint2016arXiv

An Assessment of Sunspot Number Data Composites over 1845-2014

New sunspot data composites, some of which are radically different in the character of their long-term variation, are evaluated over the interval 1845-2014. The method commonly used to calibrate historic sunspot data, relative to modern-day data, is "daisy-chaining", whereby calibration is passed from one data subset to the neighbouring one, usually using regressions of the data subsets for the intervals of their overlap. Recent studies have illustrated serious pitfalls in these regressions and the resulting errors can be compounded by their repeated use as the data sequence is extended back in time. Hence the recent composite data series by Usoskin et al. (2016), $R_{UEA}$, is a very important advance because it avoids regressions, daisy-chaining and other common, but invalid, assumptions: this is achieved by comparing the statistics of "active day" fractions to those for a single reference dataset. We study six sunspot data series including $R_{UEA}$ and the new "backbone" data series $R_{BB}$, recently generated by Svalgaard and Schatten (2016) by employing both regression and daisy-chaining. We show that all six can be used with a continuity model to reproduce the main features of the open solar flux variation for 1845-2014, as reconstructed from geomagnetic activity data. However, some differences can be identified that are consistent with tests using a basket of other proxies for solar magnetic fields. Using data from a variety of sunspot observers, we illustrate problems with the method employed in $R_{BB}$ which cause it to increasingly overestimate sunspot numbers going back in time and we recommend using $R_{UEA}$ because it employs more robust procedures that avoid such problems.