Comparison of counterstreaming suprathermal electron signatures of ICMEs with and without magnetic cloud: are all ICMEs flux ropes?
Jiemin Wang, Yan Zhao, Hengqiang Feng, Qiang Liu, Zhanjun Tian, Hongbo Li, Ake Zhao, Guoqing Zhao
aa r X i v : . [ phy s i c s . s p ace - ph ] N ov Astronomy&Astrophysicsmanuscript no. 2019Wang c (cid:13)
ESO 2019November 18, 2019
Comparison of counterstreaming suprathermalelectron signatures of ICMEs with and withoutmagnetic cloud: are all ICMEs flux ropes?
Jiemin Wang, Yan Zhao, Hengqiang Feng, Qiang Liu, Zhanjun Tian, Hongbo Li, AkeZhao, Guoqing Zhao
Institute of space physics, Luoyang Normal University, Luoyang 471934, Chinae-mail: [email protected]
Preprint online version: November 18, 2019
ABSTRACT
Context.
Magnetic clouds (MCs), as large-scale interplanetary magnetic flux ropes, are usuallystill connected to the sun at both ends near 1 AU. Many researchers believe that all non-MCinterplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) also have magnetic flux rope structures, which areinconspicuous because the observing spacecraft crosses the flanks of the rope structures. If so,the field lines of non-MC ICMEs should also be usually connected to the Sun on both ends.
Aims.
Then we want to know whether the field lines of most non-MC ICMEs are still connectedto the sun at both ends or not.
Methods.
This study examined the counterstreaming suprathermal electron (CSE) signatures of266 ICMEs observed by the
Advanced Composition Explorer ( ACE ) spacecraft from 1998 to2008 and compared the CSE signatures of MCs and non-MC ICMEs.
Results.
Results show that only 10 of the 101 MC events (9 .
9% ) and 75 of the 171 non-MCevents (43 . ACE spacecraft passes through theirflanks of magnetic flux ropes.
Conclusions.
Considering that most other non-MC events have disordered magnetic fields, wesuggest that some non-MC ICMEs inherently have disordered magnetic fields, namely have nomagnetic flux rope structures.
Key words.
Sun: coronal mass ejections (CMEs), Sun: Solar wind
1. Introduction
Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are intense solar explosive eruptions during which large amountsof plasma and magnetic fields from the solar atmosphere are ejected to the interplanetary space.The interplanetary manifestations of CMEs (ICMEs; Kilpua et al. 2017) can be measured by a
Send o ff print requests to : Hengqiang Feng 1ang, et al.: Ccounterstreaming suprathermal electron signatures of ICMEs spacecraft at about 1 AU and exhibit the following characteristics: increase in total magnetic mag-nitude (Cane & Richardson, 2003), helium abundance (Hirshberg et al. 1972; Zwickl et al. 1983;Richardson & Cane 2004.), average iron ionization (Lepri et al. 2001; Lepri & Zurbuchen 2004),and O + abundance (Richardson & Cane 2004, Wang & Feng 2016); decrease in proton tempera-tures and proton densities (Gosling et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2013); counterstreaming suprathermalelectron (CSE) strahls and declining speed (Zwickl et al. 1983; Gosling et al. 1987; Shodhan et al.2000; Burlaga et al. 2001). A subset of ICMEs was defined as magnetic cloud (MC) by Burlagaet al. (1981) empirically using the following properties: (1) the magnetic field strength is higherthan average, (2) a smooth change in field direction as observed by a spacecraft passing throughthe cloud, and (3) low proton temperature compared to the ambient proton temperature. MCs usu-ally have magnetic flux rope structures, and they are the main source of major geomagnetic storms(Burlaga et al. 1981; Webb et al. 2000; Huttunen et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2007). Observationsat 1 AU show that 30%-40% of ICMEs are MCs, and this percentage depends on the solar cy-cle (Richardson & Cane, 2004). However, CMEs are usually assumed to have magnetic flux ropestructures near the sun because of their helical shapes (Canfield et al. 1999; Liu et al. 2010; Rust& Kumar 1996). Thus, do non-MC ICMEs also have flux rope structures? The journal of SolarPhysics once made a special issue to address this question (Gopalswamy et al. 2013a). A com-parative study of 23 MCs and 31 non-MC ICMEs was completed, and the source regions of the54 ICMEs were located within ± o longitude from the disk center. Yashiro et al. (2013) foundthat the structures of the post-eruption arcades of MCs and non-MC ICMEs during launch haveno significant di ff erence. Gopalswamy et al. (2013b) observed that MCs and non-MC ICMEs havesignificant enhancement in Fe and O charge states, and Fe and O charge-state measurements arepositively correlated with flare properties, including flare size and soft X-ray flare intensity. Theirobservations suggest that these CMEs have similar explosive environment and flux rope structuresnear the sun. Furthermore, some studies indicate that CMEs associated with MCs tend to propagatealong the sun-Earth line, whereas non-MC events are deflected away from the sun-Earth line (Kimet al. 2013; M¨akel¨a et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2013). Therefore, many researchers believe that allICMEs have magnetic flux rope structures and that the non-MC events are due to observationallimitations, that is, observing spacecraft crosses the flanks of the ropes and thus the ICMEs appearsas non-MCs. This has been shown by some multi-satellite observed ICMEs, namely spacecraft far-ther from the axis detects less clear flux rope signatures than centrally crossing spacecraft for thesame event(Cane et al., 1997; Kilpua et al., 2011).Moreover, some researchers believe that some ICMEs may have lost their flux rope struc-ture due to interactions in interplanetary space (e.g., Gopalswamy et al., 2001; Liu et al., 2014;Manchester et al., 2017). In particular, sometimes multiple ICMEs can merge to form a complexejecta / ICMEs where their individual characteristics are not identifiable anymore (Burlaga et al.2002). According to Rodkin et al. (2018), about 48% of observed ICMEs are associated with twoor more sources; in some cases, complex ICMEs can be associated with multiple CMEs from thesame active region (Burlaga et al. 2002). The interaction processes include compression and mag-netic reconnection; however, the compression process does not change the overall topology of ropestructures (Riley & Crooker, 2004, Zhang et al. 2013). Therefore, the rope structures of CMEs aredestroyed mainly through magnetic reconnection processes. A CME that was associated with com-plex (non-MC) ejecta may inherently had complex magnetic field structure at the Sun, as shown in the simulation results of Lynch et al. (2008). Richardson & Cane (2004) favored the view thatthe reconnection of multiple loop systems may result in CMEs with several complicated magneticfield structures as solar activity increases. This explanation is appropriate for the observation thata fraction of MCs vary with the phase of the solar cycle, that is, about 15% at solar maximum butalmost 100% at solar minimum. However, CME source regions cluster to low latitudes at solar min-imum and high latitudes at solar maximum (Hundhausen et al. 1984), thus a ff ecting whether CMEsare expected to be crossed more centrally or at flanks. Recently, Awasthi et al. (2018) reported anon-MC ICME that supports this view. Its pre-eruptive structure consists of multiple-braided fluxropes with di ff erent degrees of coherency, and the individual flux-rope branches manifest recon-nection with each other. Awasthi et al. (2018) excluded that the complex ICME can result from themerging of successive CMEs and the spacecraft they used only made a glancing encounter withEarth-directed CME. Awasthi et al. (2018) considered that a non-MC event inherently disruptsmagnetic fields.Suprathermal electron strahls in the solar wind come from the Sun and are focused along mag-netic field lines (Feldman et al. 1975; Rosenbauer et al. 1977; Pagel et al. 2005). Therefore, ob-servations of CSE strahls within MCs can indicate that the flux rope structures are still connectedwith the suns magnetic field lines on both ends (Gosling et al. 1995; Larson et al. 1997; Shodhanet al. 2000; Feng et al. 2015, 2019). Therefore, observations of CSE strahls within MCs can in-dicate that the flux rope structures are still connected with the suns magnetic field lines on bothends (Gosling et al. 1995; Larson et al. 1997; Shodhan et al. 2000; Feng et al. 2015, 2019). CSEscan also be produced by other mechanisms, e.g., connection to the Earths bowshock (Feldman etal., 1982; Stansberry et al., 1988), interplanetary shocks or CIRs (Gosling et al., 1993; Steinberget al., 2005; Lavraud et al., 2010) and distribution function depletions near the 90 o pitch angle(Gosling et al., 2001, 2002; Skoug et al., 2006). Among these mechanisms, the depletion CSEs areoften observed on closed or open field lines within ICMEs, but the depletion CSEs are centeredon and roughly symmetric about 90 o pitch angle (Gosling et al. 2002), and can be distinguishedfrom CSE strahls. Shodhan et al. (2000) examined the CSE strahl signatures of 52 MCs detectedby using a spacecraft near 1 AU and determined that approximately 87 .
5% of MCs exhibit CSEsignatures, revealing that most MCs are still attached to the sun on both ends at 1 AU. Goslinget al. (1990, 1995) have proposed explanations for how flux ropes arise in terms of 3-dimensionalreconnection close to the Sun. They illustrate the original flux rope reconnect to form a helicalfield line connected to the Sun at both ends. The closed field lines of flux ropes can gradually openand occasionally disconnect from the corona when closed flux ropes expand from the Sun into theinterplanetary space (Gosling et al. 1995). The proposal of Gosling et al. (1995) was confirmed bystatistical results of Shodhan et al. (2000), namely most MCs exhibit CSE strahls in parts of theirdurations, only 6 of the 52 MCs have no CSE. Then we want to know whether non-MC ICMEshave the same CSE strahl signatures. In this study, CSE signatures from
Advanced CompositionExplorer ( ACE ) during 1998-2008 are compared between ICMEs with and without MCs, and aimto discuss whether the CSE signatures are related to the flux-rope structures.
2. Data
In this study, the 272 eV suprathermal electron pitch-angle distributions (PADs) measured by ACEare used. The electron PADs are obtained from the
Solar Wind Electron Proton Alpha Monitor ( SWEPAM ) with angular resolution and time resolution at 9 degrees and 64 second (McComaset al., 1998). This study examined 16-s average magnetic field, 64-s average plasma, 1-h aver-age O + / O + ratio, and mean Fe charge state h Fe i data from 1998 to 2008 measured by ACE and identified 272 ICMEs in total. The ICMEs were identified the following process: (1) We takethe events in previous ICMEs lists of Jian et al. (2006), Chi et al. (2016), Richardson & Cane(http: // / ACE / ASC / DATA / level3 / icmetable2.htm <
10 h) structures as ICMEs. As the origin of these smallerscale ICMEs and flux ropes are still debated (Feng et al. 2007; Rouillard et al. 2011; Janvier et al.2014; Feng & Wang 2015; Wang et al. 2019), we have excluded them from this study. (3) The highFe charge states ( h Fe i ≥ O + / O + ratio ( ≥
1) are the result of flare-relatedheating in the corona (Lepri & Zurbuchen 2004; Reinard, 2005), so they are independently reli-able ICME indicators (Feng & Wang 2015). If the candidate ICMEs have high Fe charge statesor / and abnormally high O + / O + ratio, they are identified as ICMEs. (4) If the candidate ICMEshave no high Fe charge states and abnormally high O + / O + ratio, we will examine the follow-ing 5 characteristics: declining speed (apparent expansion), increase in total magnetic magnitude,helium abundance (He / P >
3. Observations and Results
This study analyzed the 272 eV suprathermal electron PADs to determine the CSE signatures withinICMEs. The CSE events were confirmed through their suprathermal electron PADs that show sig-nificantly higher phase space densities near 0 o and 180 o pitch angle directions than in the 90 o pitchangle direction (Lavraud et al. 2010). If the ratios of phase space densities near 0 o and 180 o tothe phase space densities at 90 o in an interval are greater than 3, we will take the interval as pos-sible CSE interval. Then we the remove depletion CSEs on open field lines by eyes using theirsymmetries. Last, the phase space densities at 90 o can obviously strengthen by scattering of strahlelectrons. For some intervals within ICMEs, the ratios of phase space densities near 0 o and 180 o to the phase space densities at 90 o are less than 3, but the CSE strahls still can be recognized byeyes, we will also take these intervals as CSE strahls. CSE boundaries are not always recogniz- Fig. 1.
Suprathermal electron pitch angle distributions of 272 eV, magnetic field and plasma datameasured by
ACE during the October 21C22, 1999 ICME passage. The two vertical dashed linesdenote the boundaries of the ICME.able, and thus the identification of CSE intervals within ICMEs is somewhat subjective (Shodhanet al. 2000). We used the ICME in October 21-22, 1999 as an example to illustrate the process ofidentifying a CSE interval.Figure 1 shows the suprathermal electron PADs, magnetic and plasma data in October 21-22, 1999 ICME passage. The two vertical-dashed lines represent the front and rear boundaries ofICME. This ICME exhibits high Fe charge states ( h Fe i ≥ O + / O + ratio ( ≥ / P( > o directions occurred throughout the duration of the ICME; (2) the 0 o suprathermal electron strahlsmainly present in the rear half part. The red bars above the suprathermal electron PADs marks the y
0 00.51 z
0 00.51 x R R R −R −R −R Fig. 2.
Variation of normalized magnetic field components for the case of d = . R , where R isradius of the flux rope, d is the distance between the spacecraft trajectory and the rope axis.intervals where the ratios of phase space densities near 0 o and 180 o to the phase space densities at90 o are greater than 3. It is easy to find that strong depletions occurred within the first bar, and thedepletion CSE interval was removed when we estimated the percentages of CSE. One can also findthat the bars in the rear half part have two short intervals, which are caused by scattering of strahlelectrons. So we take the two short intervals as CSE strahls, and the percentage of CSE strahls isabout 35%.Furthermore, this study examined all the suprathermal electron PADs of the 272 ICMEs andestimated the percentages of CSEs. The results are listed in the sixth column of Table 1. Only 10(9.9%) of the 101 MCs have no CSE, and the ratio is consistent with the results of Shodhan et al.(2000), who examined the CSE signatures of 52 MCs and concluded that 6 MCs have no CSE. Asfor the other 91 MCs, the percentages of CSE vary from 6% to 100%, with a mean value of 57%.Meanwhile, 75 of the 171 non-MC ICMEs (43.9%) do not contain CSEs. The fraction of ICMEswithout CSE is thus clearly larger in non-MC ICMEs than in MCs. The extensive di ff erence mayimply that the two groups have di ff erent magnetic structures. For the other 96 non-MC events, theirmean CSE percentage is 45%, which is smaller than 57%. Among the 96 non-MC ICMEs, 21 havea percentage greater than 70%. An examination of the magnetic field component curves of these21 ICMEs reveal that fields of most events have neither apparent smooth rotations nor disorder, buttheir magnetic field component curves have only slight rotations, and they are relatively stable oreven close to the line. As we all know that most MCs can be described with constant a force-freefield configuration, e.g., Lundquist solution (Lepping et al. 1990; Feng et al. 2006 ). Accordingto the Lundquist solution, the shapes of measured field component curves depend on the distance d between the spacecraft trajectory and the rope axis (See Figure 2, 3, 4 of Feng et al. 2006). The spacecraft will measure center-enhanced and bipolar curves if the spacecraft trajectory areclose the rope axis, or else, the bipolar curves will disappear. Figure 2 shows the variations of themagnetic field components for the case of d = . R , where R is radius of the flux rope; z is theaxial direction, x is the radial direction pointing to the satellite contact position, the direction y isobtained from the cross product of z and x . In Figure 2, all the three magnetic field componentsare relatively stable and exhibit only slight rotations. These trends indicate that the spacecraft thatpasses through the flank of a magnetic flux ropes will measured relatively stable magnetic fieldvariations. So the 21 highest percentage (more than 70%) events may have flux rope structures,but the spacecraft crosses the flanks of the ropes and thus the flux rope signatures didn’t appear.For example, Figure 3 shows that the ICME in February 18-19, 2005 has a CSE percentage of100%. Based on Figure 3, one can find that all three magnetic field component curves remainedstable with little fluctuation; in particular, the z component curve is around zero. Meanwhile, themagnetic field magnitude remains at a low value. This event does not satisfy the requirements ofMCs (flux ropes). Kim et al. (2013) investigated the propagation characteristics of this ICME andused the direction parameter (D) to quantify the asymmetry of CME shapes in coronagraph imagesand the degree of deviation from the sun-Earth line. The value of D is between 0 and 1, and a smallD indicates a large deviation from the sun-Earth line. For this ICME, the D value is only 0.13,indicating that its propagation direction is essentially deviated from the sun-Earth line. Thus, Kimet al. (2013) considered that this CME inherently has a magnetic flux rope structure even thoughthe ACE spacecraft crossed the flank of the rope and did not measure the essential properties ofthe magnetic flux rope. For this ICME, we have the same viewpoint with Kim et al. (2013). Figure2 has demonstrated that spacecraft passes through the flank of magnetic flux ropes will measurerelatively stable magnetic field variations. The MC legs, which magnetically connect the flux ropeto the Sun, are not recognizable as MCs and thus are unlikely to contain twisted flux rope fields.Spacecraft encounters with these non-flux rope legs may provide an explanation for the frequentobservation of non-MC ICMEs. It is also possible that the spacecraft passes through the legs of theflux rope where the flux rope like rotation is not observed but other flux rope signatures are present(Owens et al., 2016). So we concluded that most of the 21 ICMEs with large CSE percentages mayinherently have flux rope structures, but the structures did not appear as MCs because of geometricselection e ff ects. Finally, we can draw such a conclusion that only a few MCs do not exhibit CSEsignatures, but about half of the non-MC ICMEs do not exhibit CSE signatures.
4. Discussion and summary
In this study, we have examined the CSE signatures of the 272 ICMEs detected by ACE from 1998to 2008 and compared them between ICMEs with and without MC (flux rope) structure. Our studyconfirms the earlier results e.g. by Shodan et al. (2000) that the overwhelming majority of MCsare still connected to the solar magnetic field on both ends for at least parts of their magnetic fieldlines near 1 AU. The clear majority of MCs exhibiting CSE suggests that the non-MC populationfeaturing CSE could also have flux rope structure. We find that the MC category had 101 events,and only 10 (9.9%) events had no CSEs, the non-MC category had 171 events, but 75 (43.9%) eventhad no CSEs. The fraction of non-MC events without CSE is distinctly larger than that for the MCevents. The highest percentage (more than 70%) events in the non-MC category usually have stable
Fig. 3.
Suprathermal electron pitch angle distributions of 272 eV, magnetic field and plasma datameasured by
ACE during the February 18C19, 2005 ICME passage.magnetic field components accompanied with slight rotations based on our visual evaluation. Theseobservations are in line with the expectations that spacecraft passes through the flank of magneticflux ropes. The results of this study imply that some non-MC events indeed have magnetic fluxrope structures. In most non-MC events, magnetic fields are disordered, and most field lines arenot connected to the sun at both ends. Like reported CME by Awasthi et al. (2018), these non-MCevents may inherently have disordered magnetic fields, which results from the interactions amongmultiple-braided flux ropes with di ff erent degrees of coherency on the sun. In summary, this studyprovides information that is helpful in checking whether all ICMEs have flux rope structures. Theobservations in this study do not support the idea that all CMEs that arrive on Earth have fluxropes but support that some non-MC events indeed have a magnetic flux rope structures. However,we can not exclude the possibility that all CMEs that arrive to Earth would have had a flux rope structure when they were launched from the Sun. The association of the CSE signatures and theCME structures is an interesting problem and can be investigated in future. Acknowledgements.
The authors acknowledge supports from NSFC under grant Nos. 41804162, 41674170, 41974197. Theauthors thank NASA / GSFC for the use of data from ACE, these data can obtain freely from the Coordinated Data AnalysisWeb (http: // cdaweb.gsfc.nasa.gov / cdaweb / istp public / ). References
Awasthi, A. K., Liu, R., Wang, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 124Burlaga, L., Sittler, E., Mariani, F., & Schwenn, R. 1981, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 6673Burlaga, L. F., Plunkett, S. P., & St. Cyr, O. C. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1266Burlaga, L. F., Skoug, R. M., Smith, C. W., et al. 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 20957Cane, H. V., Richardson, I. G., & Wibberenz, G. 1997, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 7075Cane, H. V., & Richardson, I. G. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 1156Canfield, R. C., Hudson, H. S., & McKenzie, D. E. 1999, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 627Chi, Y., Shen, C., Wang, Y., et al. 2016, Sol. Phys., 291, 2419Crooker, N. U., Forsyth, R., Rees, A., et al. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A06110Feng, H. Q., Wu, D. J., & Chao, J. K. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A07S90Feng, H. Q., Wu, D. J., & Chao, J. K. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A02102Feng, H. Q., Wu, D. J., Lin, C. C., et al. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A12105Feng, H. Q., Wu, D. J., & Chao, J. K. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 115, A10109Feng, H. Q., Zhao, G. Q., & Wang, J. M. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 10Feng, H. Q., & Wang, J. M. 2015, ApJ, 809, 112Feng, H. Q., Zhao, G. Q., & Wang, J. M. 2019, Sci. China Technological Sci., https: // doi.org / / s11431-018-9481-1.Feldman, W. C., Asbridge, J. R., Bame, S. J., et al. 1975, J. Geophys. Res., 80, 4181Feldman, W. C., Anderson, R. C., Asbridge, J. R., et al. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 632Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Kaiser, M. L., et al. 2001, ApJ, 548, L91Gopalswamy, N., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., Hidalgo, M., et al. 2013a, Sol. Phys., 284, 1Gopalswamy, N., M¨akel¨a, P., Akiyama, S., et al. 2013b, Sol. Phys., 284, 17Gosling, J. T., Pizzo, V., & Bame, S. J. 1973, J. Geophys. Res., 78, 2001Gosling, J. T., Baker, D. N., Bame, S. J., et al. 1987, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 8519Gosling, J. T. 1990, Washington DC American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph Series, 58, 343Gosling, J. T., Bame, S. J., Feldman, W. C., et al. 1993, Geophys. Res. Lett., 20, 2335Gosling, J. T., Birn, J., & Hesse, M. 1995, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 869Gosling, J. T., Skoug, R. M., & Feldman, W. C. 2001, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 4155Gosling, J. T., Skoug, R. M., Feldman, W. C., et al. 2002, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 1573Hirshberg, J., Bame, S. J., & Robbins, D. E. 1972, Sol. Phys., 23, 467Hundhausen, A. J., Sawyer, C. B., House, L., Illing, R. M. E., & Wagner, W. J. 1984, J. Geophys. Res., 89, 2639Huttunen, K. E. J., Koskinen, H. E. J., & Schwenn, R. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1121Janvier, M., D´emoulin, P., & Dasso, S. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 119, 7088Kilpua, E. K. J., Jian, L. K., Li, Y., Luhmann, J. G., & Russell, C. T. 2011, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-TerrestrialPhysics, 73, 1228Kilpua, E., Koskinen, H. E. J., & Pulkkinen, T. I. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 5Kim, R.-S., Gopalswamy, N., Cho, K.-S., et al. 2013, Sol. Phys., 284, 77Larson, D. E., Lin, R. P., McTiernan, J. M., et al. 1997, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 1911Lavraud, B., Opitz, A., Gosling, J. T., et al. 2010, Annales Geophysicae, 28, 233Lepping, R. P., Burlaga, L. F., & Jones, J. A. 1990, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 11957Lepri, S. T., Zurbuchen, T. H., Fisk, L. A., et al. 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 29231Lepri, S. T., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A01112Liu, R., Liu, C., Wang, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, L84Liu, Y. D., Yang, Z., Wang, R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, L41Lynch, B. J., Antiochos, S. K., DeVore, C. R., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 1192M¨akel¨a, P., Gopalswamy, N., Xie, H., et al. 2013, Sol. Phys., 284, 59Manchester, W., Kilpua, E. K. J., Liu, Y. D., et al. 2017, Space Sci. Rev., 212, 1159McComas, D. J., Bame, S. J., Barker, P., et al. 1998, Space Sci. Rev., 86, 563Pagel, C., Crooker, N. U., Larson, D. E., et al. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A01103Reinard, A. 2005, ApJ, 620, 501Richardson, I. G., & Cane, H. V. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A09104Riley, P., & Crooker, N. U. 2004, ApJ, 600, 1035 Rodkin, D., Slemzin, V., Zhukov, A. N., et al. 2018, Sol. Phys., 293, 78Rouillard, A. P., Sheeley, N. R., Jr., Cooper, T. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 734, 7Rosenbauer, H., Schwenn, R., Marsch, E., et al. 1977, Journal of Geophysics Zeitschrift Geophysik, 42, 561Rust, D. M., & Kumar, A. 1996, ApJ, 464, L199Shodhan, S., Crooker, N. U., Kahler, S. W., et al. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 27261Skoug, R. M., Gosling, J. T., McComas, D. J., et al. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A01101Stansberry, J. A., Gosling, J. T., Thomsen, M. F., et al. 1988, J. Geophys. Res., 93, 1975Steinberg, J. T., Gosling, J. T., Skoug, R. M., et al. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A06103Wang, J. M. &Feng, H. Q., 2016, Sci. China Earth Sci., 59, 1051Wang, J. M., Feng, H. Q., Li, H. B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 57Webb, D. F., Cliver, E. W., Crooker, N. U., et al. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 7491Yashiro, S., Gopalswamy, N., M¨akel¨a, P., et al. 2013, Sol. Phys., 284, 5Zhang, J., Hess, P., & Poomvises, W. 2013, Sol. Phys., 284, 89Zhang, J., Richardson, I. G., Webb, D. F., et al. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A10102Zwickl, R. D., Asbridge, J. R., Bame, S. J., et al. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 7379
Table 1.
The percent counterstreaming suprathermal electron in ICMEs.
NO. Start a End b Duration c Type d Percent e
001 1998 / /
07 02:50 1998 / /
08 13:08 34.3 MC 56002 1998 / /
21 05:40 1998 / /
22 13:22 31.7 non-MC 6003 1998 / /
29 19:56 1998 / /
30 23:08 27.2 non-MC 23004 1998 / /
02 13:10 1998 / /
04 02:15 37.1 non-MC 0005 1998 / /
04 04:15 1998 / /
05 15:10 34.9 MC 20006 1998 / /
17 10:00 1998 / /
17 21:00 11.0 MC 88007 1998 / /
19 00:20 1998 / /
20 00:10 23.8 non-MC 0008 1998 / /
04 13:00 1998 / /
06 05:40 40.7 MC 0009 1998 / /
25 12:00 1998 / /
26 09:50 21.8 MC 93010 1998 / /
01 01:45 1998 / /
03 01:35 47.8 non-MC 8011 1998 / /
12 01:20 1998 / /
13 17:50 40.5 non-MC 0012 1998 / /
02 11:47 1998 / /
04 02:30 38.7 MC 53013 1998 / /
05 07:05 1998 / /
06 23:20 40.3 non-MC 32014 1998 / /
14 05:10 1998 / /
15 07:05 25.9 MC 56015 1998 / /
24 12:00 1998 / /
25 23:15 35.3 MC 51016 1998 / /
26 07:10 1998 / /
26 18:58 11.8 non-MC 94017 1998 / /
06 05:40 1998 / /
09 07:12 73.5 non-MC 36018 1998 / /
11 13:54 1998 / /
12 21:40 31.8 non-MC 0019 1998 / /
01 14:38 1998 / /
03 09:38 43.0 non-MC 0020 1999 / /
04 03:37 1999 / /
05 12:30 33.4 non-MC 33021 1998 / /
10 07:15 1998 / /
11 21:52 38.6 non-MC 08022 1998 / /
11 23:50 1998 / /
13 13:12 37.4 non-MC 53023 1998 / /
20 07:58 1998 / /
21 19:22 35.4 MC 27024 1998 / /
26 21:30 1998 / /
28 00:15 26.8 non-MC 57025 1998 / /
23 04:02 1998 / /
23 17:45 13.7 MC 38026 1998 / /
25 06:04 1998 / /
26 16:05 34.0 MC 100027 1998 / /
19 03:53 1998 / /
20 07:45 27.9 MC 63028 1998 / /
23 15:45 1998 / /
24 16:10 24.6 non-MC 90029 1998 / /
08 04:20 1998 / /
09 02:55 22.6 MC 31030 1998 / /
09 02:55 1998 / /
10 06:42 27.8 MC 46031 1998 / /
13 00:58 1998 / /
14 13:50 36.9 MC 34032 1998 / /
30 08:56 1998 / /
01 02:40 17.7 non-MC 20033 1998 / /
29 18:35 1998 / /
31 01:00 30.4 non-MC 46034 1999 / /
04 04:05 1999 / /
04 22:19 18.2 non-MC 41035 1999 / /
13 09:56 1999 / /
14 15:31 29.6 non-MC 0036 1999 / /
23 04:50 1999 / /
23 17:38 12.8 non-MC 30037 1999 / /
13 18:45 1999 / /
14 15:30 20.8 non-MC 0038 1999 / /
16 14:18 1999 / /
17 08:54 18.6 non-MC 0039 1999 / /
17 11:40 1999 / /
18 09:42 22.0 non-MC 0040 1999 / /
18 09:42 1999 / /
19 10:41 25.0 MC 90041 1999 / /
19 22:37 1999 / /
20 18:05 19.5 non-MC 0042 1999 / /
10 17:38 1999 / /
12 02:02 32.4 non-MC 33043 1999 / /
19 10:34 1999 / /
20 16:20 29.8 non-MC 41044 1999 / /
16 17:56 1999 / /
17 18:57 25.0 MC 63045 1999 / /
21 04:20 1999 / /
22 13:42 33.4 MC 79046 1999 / /
16 08:45 1999 / /
18 00:03 39.3 non-MC 0047 1999 / /
03 00:17 1999 / /
03 21:43 21.4 non-MC 0048 1999 / /
28 04:08 1999 / /
29 03:02 22.9 non-MC 0049 1999 / /
03 06:37 1999 / /
05 13:38 55.0 non-MC 0050 1999 / /
06 21:25 1999 / /
07 16:53 19.5 non-MC 52051 1999 / /
08 03:58 1999 / /
08 22:08 18.2 non-MC 0052 1999 / /
27 17:45 1999 / /
29 09:43 40.0 non-MC 91053 1999 / /
30 11:40 1999 / /
31 08:20 20.7 non-MC 8054 1999 / /
01 03:35 1999 / /
02 03:50 24.3 non-MC 0055 1999 / /
02 16:32 1999 / /
03 17:10 24.6 non-MC 0056 1999 / /
09 09:36 1999 / /
10 17:44 32.1 MC 92057 1999 / /
12 08:55 1999 / /
14 00:15 39.3 non-MC 25058 1999 / /
21 11:50 1999 / /
23 11:30 47.7 non-MC 49059 1999 / /
15 07:20 1999 / /
15 19:42 12.4 MC 24060 1999 / /
21 19:46 1999 / /
22 11:44 16.0 MC 75061 1999 / /
22 19:08 1999 / /
24 04:56 33.8 non-MC 23062 1999 / /
21 03:51 1999 / /
22 05:56 26.1 non-MC 35063 1999 / /
12 09:10 1999 / /
13 19:39 34.5 non-MC 0064 1999 / /
14 00:42 1999 / /
14 23:26 22.7 non-MC 0065 1999 / /
22 00:48 1999 / /
23 01:00 24.2 non-MC 56066 1999 / /
23 06:12 1999 / /
23 18:42 12.5 non-MC 0067 1999 / /
23 19:20 1999 / /
24 06:20 11.0 MC 012ang, et al.: Ccounterstreaming suprathermal electron signatures of ICMEs
Table 1. (Continued)
NO. Start a End b Duration c Type d Percent e
068 1999 / /
12 19:32 1999 / /
13 16:28 20.9 non-MC 98069 1999 / /
14 03:40 1999 / /
14 19:21 15.7 MC 74070 1999 / /
27 18:40 1999 / /
28 04:43 10.1 non-MC 46071 2000 / /
22 17:00 2000 / /
25 08:20 61.3 MC 80072 2000 / /
12 12:15 2000 / /
13 00:10 11.9 MC 59073 2000 / /
14 12:18 2000 / /
16 07:51 43.6 non-MC 0074 2000 / /
21 05:21 2000 / /
22 12:13 30.9 MC 74075 2000 / /
01 03:08 2000 / /
02 02:30 23.4 non-MC 100076 2000 / /
19 03:32 2000 / /
19 15:20 11.8 non-MC 0077 2000 / /
28 03:10 2000 / /
29 19:28 40.3 non-MC 0078 2000 / /
30 01:27 2000 / /
30 13:00 11.6 non-MC 0079 2000 / /
31 02:58 2000 / /
01 02:15 23.3 non-MC 6080 2000 / /
07 08:26 2000 / /
08 05:32 21.1 non-MC 45081 2000 / /
18 20:05 2000 / //
18 20:05 2000 / //
19 13:45 17.7 non-MC 0082 2000 / /
07 06:05 2000 / /
08 00:10 18.1 non-MC 31083 2000 / /
13 16:51 2000 / /
14 17:48 25.0 non-MC 0084 2000 / /
15 18:32 2000 / /
16 14:51 20.3 non-MC 0085 2000 / /
23 08:58 2000 / /
23 20:32 11.6 non-MC 0086 2000 / /
24 11:56 2000 / /
26 16:00 52.1 non-MC 16087 2000 / /
04 23:50 2000 / /
06 22:00 46.2 non-MC 38088 2000 / /
08 15:15 2000 / /
10 17:05 49.8 non-MC 100089 2000 / /
13 12:08 2000 / /
14 06:25 18.3 non-MC 5090 2000 / /
24 06:32 2000 / /
26 00:12 41.7 non-MC 0091 2000 / /
26 10:14 2000 / /
26 23:28 13.2 non-MC 0092 2000 / /
01 07:30 2000 / /
03 08:43 49.2 MC 6093 2000 / /
11 22:48 2000 / /
13 02:16 27.5 non-MC 35094 2000 / /
13 12:28 2000 / /
14 15:00 26.5 non-MC 17095 2000 / /
14 17:17 2000 / /
15 14:15 21.0 non-MC 0096 2000 / /
15 19:52 2000 / /
16 23:22 27.5 MC 47097 2000 / /
20 09:10 2000 / /
21 07:08 22.0 non-MC 0098 2000 / /
23 19:20 2000 / /
26 02:42 55.4 non-MC 0099 2000 / /
27 08:52 2000 / /
27 21:12 12.3 MC 8100 2000 / /
28 13:03 2000 / /
29 10:12 21.2 MC 38101 2000 / /
10 19:21 2000 / /
11 18:10 22.8 non-MC 100102 2000 / /
12 05:19 2000 / /
13 22:11 40.9 MC 82103 2000 / /
02 21:48 2000 / /
03 12:50 15.0 non-MC 0104 2000 / /
06 00:44 2000 / /
06 16:12 15.5 non-MC 0105 2000 / /
17 23:20 2000 / /
19 03:10 27.8 MC 100106 2000 / /
03 15:08 2000 / /
05 02:33 35.4 MC 43107 2000 / /
05 16:36 2000 / /
07 06:28 37.9 non-MC 17108 2000 / /
13 16:17 2000 / /
14 17:03 24.8 MC 73109 2000 / /
28 21:08 2000 / /
29 22:20 25.2 MC 100110 2000 / /
06 22:15 2000 / /
07 17:22 19.1 MC 100111 2000 / /
08 13:20 2000 / /
09 14:31 25.2 non-MC 15112 2000 / /
11 08:11 2000 / /
12 00:08 16.0 non-MC 5113 2000 / /
27 08:10 2000 / /
28 02:45 18.6 non-MC 100114 2000 / /
28 22:26 2000 / /
29 21:14 22.8 non-MC 68115 2000 / /
03 13:10 2000 / /
05 07:41 42.5 non-MC 5116 2000 / /
22 06:42 2000 / /
22 18:46 12.1 non-MC 0117 2000 / /
23 00:48 2000 / /
23 11:53 11.1 non-MC 14118 2001 / /
24 08:42 2001 / /
24 20:15 11.6 non-MC 76119 2001 / /
04 05:08 2001 / /
05 01:38 20.5 non-MC 0120 2001 / /
19 19:39 2001 / /
21 23:42 52.1 MC 25121 2001 / /
27 21:46 2001 / /
28 08:18 10.5 MC 52122 2001 / /
28 17:12 2001 / /
30 18:03 48.9 non-MC 0123 2001 / /
31 05:31 2001 / /
31 21:39 16.1 non-MC 0124 2001 / /
01 05:12 2001 / /
03 16:08 58.9 non-MC 50125 2001 / /
04 18:02 2001 / /
05 10:31 16.5 MC 33126 2001 / /
08 13:16 2001 / /
09 03:31 14.3 non-MC 24127 2001 / /
12 08:10 2001 / /
13 07:08 23.0 MC 100128 2001 / /
13 10:31 2001 / /
14 11:08 24.6 non-MC 48129 2001 / /
18 11:52 2001 / /
20 11:17 47.4 non-MC 0130 2001 / /
21 23:38 2001 / /
23 03:02 27.4 MC 8131 2001 / /
28 16:38 2001 / /
01 21:43 77.1 MC 0132 2001 / /
07 17:50 2001 / /
08 07:48 14.0 MC 5133 2001 / /
09 11:54 2001 / /
10 21:19 33.4 non-MC 0134 2001 / /
11 13:05 2001 / /
12 00:07 11.0 non-MC 0135 2001 / /
28 04:38 2001 / /
29 21:26 40.8 MC 63136 2001 / /
29 21:26 2001 / /
31 14:52 41.4 non-MC 0 13ang, et al.: Ccounterstreaming suprathermal electron signatures of ICMEs
Table 1. (Continued)
NO. Start a End b Duration c Type d Percent e
137 2001 / /
07 17:19 2001 / /
08 06:52 13.6 non-MC 0138 2001 / /
18 23:40 2001 / /
19 14:02 14.4 MC 0139 2001 / /
27 03:02 2001 / /
28 16:56 37.9 non-MC 13140 2001 / /
09 02:22 2001 / /
11 04:18 49.9 MC 64141 2001 / /
15 06:00 2001 / /
16 14:31 32.5 non-MC 0142 2001 / /
18 01:28 2001 / /
19 05:45 28.3 non-MC 45143 2001 / /
30 17:15 2001 / /
31 09:34 16.3 MC 83144 2001 / /
01 13:57 2001 / /
02 18:02 28.1 MC 6145 2001 / /
13 17:36 2001 / /
14 20:58 27.4 non-MC 35146 2001 / /
24 00:16 2001 / /
24 19:13 19.0 non-MC 0147 2001 / /
25 05:40 2001 / /
25 20:03 14.4 non-MC 0148 2001 / /
26 09:52 2001 / /
27 01:36 15.7 non-MC 0149 2001 / /
29 12:10 2001 / /
30 18:45 30.6 non-MC 75150 2001 / /
30 22:26 2001 / //
30 22:26 2001 / //
01 11:00 12.6 non-MC 29151 2001 / /
02 04:04 2001 / /
03 16:27 36.4 non-MC 18152 2001 / /
22 00:13 2001 / /
22 18:44 18.5 MC 90153 2001 / /
27 00:40 2001 / /
28 02:42 26.0 non-MC 73154 2001 / /
29 21:32 2001 / /
31 12:51 39.3 non-MC 22155 2001 / /
31 20:38 2001 / /
01 14:26 17.8 MC 100156 2001 / /
14 05:12 2001 / /
15 14:01 32.8 non-MC 0157 2001 / /
24 16:46 2001 / /
25 16:07 23.4 MC 84158 2001 / /
27 23:40 2001 / /
29 04:47 29.1 non-MC 43159 2001 / /
30 02:23 2001 / /
30 19:31 17.1 MC 0160 2002 / /
28 16:49 2002 / /
01 09:43 16.9 non-MC 30161 2002 / /
19 04:46 2002 / /
20 13:05 32.3 MC 0162 2002 / /
21 16:37 2002 / /
22 06:27 13.8 non-MC 68163 2002 / /
22 13:45 2002 / /
23 10:53 21.1 non-MC 0164 2002 / /
24 11:50 2002 / /
25 14:02 26.2 MC 57165 2002 / /
12 01:10 2002 / /
13 13:19 36.2 non-MC 11166 2002 / /
17 23:08 2002 / /
19 08:02 32.9 MC 85167 2002 / /
20 04:42 2002 / /
21 15:23 34.7 non-MC 66168 2002 / /
11 13:18 2002 / /
12 01:13 11.9 non-MC 0169 2002 / /
19 02:45 2002 / /
20 02:55 24.2 MC 33170 2002 / /
20 09:08 2002 / /
21 20:54 35.8 MC 78171 2002 / /
23 21:36 2002 / /
25 17:48 44.2 MC 56172 2002 / /
18 12:00 2002 / /
19 09:31 21.5 MC 85173 2002 / /
20 02:28 2002 / /
22 04:53 50.4 non-MC 0174 2002 / /
01 08:45 2002 / /
01 22:20 13.6 MC 33175 2002 / /
02 06:12 2002 / /
04 00:30 42.3 MC 35176 2002 / /
19 18:21 2002 / /
21 17:12 46.9 non-MC 37177 2002 / /
07 16:08 2002 / /
08 18:38 26.5 non-MC 43178 2002 / /
08 22:10 2002 / /
10 20:32 46.4 non-MC 32179 2002 / /
19 21:00 2002 / /
20 22:15 25.3 non-MC 46180 2002 / /
30 21:18 2002 / /
01 15:23 18.1 MC 0181 2002 / /
03 04:42 2002 / /
04 18:20 37.6 non-MC 0182 2002 / /
17 16:30 2002 / /
19 12:48 44.3 MC 96183 2002 / /
17 20:14 2002 / /
19 01:31 29.3 non-MC 93184 2002 / /
21 02:43 2002 / /
22 18:08 39.4 non-MC 0185 2003 / /
27 01:58 2003 / /
27 23:38 21.7 non-MC 65186 2003 / /
01 18:06 2003 / /
03 07:22 37.3 non-MC 21187 2003 / /
18 04:08 2003 / /
19 15:45 35.6 non-MC 0188 2003 / /
20 12:26 2003 / /
20 23:00 10.6 MC 35189 2003 / /
09 07:04 2003 / /
11 23:01 64.0 non-MC 8190 2003 / /
29 18:32 2003 / /
30 15:53 21.4 non-MC 22191 2003 / /
30 23:42 2003 / /
31 22:23 22.7 non-MC 31192 2003 / /
15 21:38 2003 / /
16 20:31 22.9 non-MC 28193 2003 / /
17 11:53 2003 / /
18 08:43 20.8 non-MC 0194 2003 / /
06 12:25 2003 / /
07 11:42 23.3 non-MC 0195 2003 / /
23 14:00 2003 / /
24 13:52 23.9 non-MC 0196 2003 / /
04 23:51 2003 / /
06 01:08 25.3 MC 33197 2003 / /
16 02:00 2003 / /
17 13:40 35.7 non-MC 8198 2003 / /
18 01:51 2003 / /
19 14:30 36.7 MC 78199 2003 / /
22 16:39 2003 / /
24 02:28 33.8 MC 100200 2003 / /
24 18:32 2003 / /
25 11:24 16.9 non-MC 66201 2003 / /
25 13:55 2003 / /
26 08:08 18.2 non-MC 76202 2003 / /
26 18:32 2003 / /
28 01:30 31.0 non-MC 28203 2003 / /
29 11:21 2003 / /
30 16:18 29.0 MC 31204 2003 / /
31 02:18 2003 / /
01 17:20 39.0 non-MC 8014ang, et al.: Ccounterstreaming suprathermal electron signatures of ICMEs
Table 1. (Continued)
NO. Start a End b Duration c Type d Percent e
205 2003 / /
20 10:06 2003 / /
21 00:20 14.2 MC 0206 2004 / /
10 06:00 2004 / /
11 04:40 22.7 non-MC 0207 2004 / /
22 09:47 2004 / /
23 14:16 28.5 MC 71208 2004 / /
24 07:33 2004 / /
25 02:57 19.4 MC 61209 2004 / /
17 18:14 2004 / /
18 15:51 21.6 non-MC 0210 2004 / /
03 23:56 2004 / /
05 13:30 37.6 MC 51211 2004 / /
26 17:15 2004 / /
27 19:20 26.1 non-MC 0212 2004 / /
01 00:27 2004 / /
01 11:49 11.4 non-MC 0213 2004 / /
01 14:56 2004 / /
02 20:55 30.0 MC 77214 2004 / /
25 11:57 2004 / /
26 09:27 21.5 non-MC 0215 2004 / /
22 20:08 2004 / /
24 05:37 33.5 MC 87216 2004 / /
24 16:50 2004 / /
25 12:10 19.3 MC 21217 2004 / /
25 21:10 2004 / /
26 22:27 25.3 MC 13218 2004 / /
27 02:12 2004 / /
27 18:34 16.4 MC 61219 2004 / /
01 08:32 2004 / /
02 04:28 19.9 non-MC 0220 2004 / /
29 18:50 2004 / /
30 20:15 25.4 MC 54221 2004 / /
14 20:25 2004 / /
16 11:30 39.1 non-MC 28222 2004 / /
18 12:18 2004 / /
19 23:57 35.7 non-MC 57223 2004 / /
08 04:21 2004 / /
09 09:12 28.9 MC 71224 2004 / /
09 20:26 2004 / /
11 05:45 33.3 MC 9225 2004 / /
12 08:46 2004 / /
13 07:17 22.5 non-MC 54226 2004 / /
12 22:31 2004 / /
13 19:16 20.8 MC 50227 2004 / /
27 16:26 2004 / /
29 04:16 35.8 non-MC 83228 2005 / /
07 15:09 2005 / /
08 12:00 20.9 MC 28229 2005 / /
08 11:40 2005 / /
09 17:49 30.2 MC 29230 2005 / /
16 13:50 2005 / /
17 07:15 17.4 MC 17231 2005 / /
19 00:36 2005 / /
20 03:08 26.5 non-MC 79232 2005 / /
18 15:08 2005 / /
19 05:15 14.1 non-MC 98233 2005 / /
20 12:34 2005 / /
21 01:36 13.0 non-MC 0234 2005 / /
21 04:08 2005 / /
22 02:43 22.6 non-MC 0235 2005 / /
22 14:56 2005 / /
23 18:18 27.4 non-MC 7236 2005 / /
15 05:30 2005 / /
17 09:32 52.0 MC 95237 2005 / /
17 09:32 2005 / /
19 02:51 41.3 non-MC 61238 2005 / /
20 03:04 2005 / /
21 15:40 36.6 MC 11239 2005 / /
28 23:23 2005 / /
29 14:50 15.5 non-MC 32240 2005 / /
30 01:05 2005 / /
30 15:19 14.2 non-MC 67241 2005 / /
31 04:00 2005 / /
01 02:53 22.9 non-MC 0242 2005 / /
12 15:00 2005 / /
13 11:42 20.7 non-MC 0243 2005 / /
15 05:10 2005 / /
16 08:08 27.0 MC 56244 2005 / /
16 17:00 2005 / /
17 19:05 26.1 non-MC 33245 2005 / /
10 10:18 2005 / /
12 04:23 42.1 non-MC 45246 2005 / /
08 23:12 2005 / /
09 11:33 12.4 non-MC 97247 2005 / /
24 20:33 2005-08-25 13:08 16.6 non-MC 74248 2005 / /
02 18:29 2005 / /
03 04:27 10.0 MC 74249 2005 / /
11 05:32 2005 / /
12 06:02 24.5 non-MC 94250 2005 / /
12 20:39 2005 / /
13 13:31 16.9 non-MC 57251 2005 / /
15 15:56 2005 / /
16 17:37 25.7 non-MC 18252 2005 / /
20 20:50 2005 / /
21 17:56 21.1 non-MC 0253 2005 / /
31 01:55 2005 / /
31 18:33 16.6 MC 33254 2005 / /
31 14:45 2006 / /
01 13:28 22.7 MC 100255 2006 / /
05 19:16 2006 / /
06 11:35 16.3 MC 42256 2006 / /
13 15:45 2006 / /
14 11:02 19.3 MC 50257 2006 / /
10 20:06 2006 / /
11 17:42 21.6 non-MC 30258 2006 / /
20 14:05 2006 / /
21 15:51 25.8 non-MC 0 15ang, et al.: Ccounterstreaming suprathermal electron signatures of ICMEs
Table 1. (Continued)
NO. Start a End b Duration c Type d Percent e
259 2006 / /
30 08:08 2006 / /
30 19:40 11.5 MC 36260 2006 / /
01 17:03 2006 / /
02 13:32 20.5 non-MC 92261 2006 / /
18 11:02 2006 / /
20 02:10 39.1 non-MC 0262 2006 / /
29 10:20 2006 / /
30 09:00 22.7 MC 18263 2006 / /
14 22:34 2006 / /
15 19:21 20.8 MC 90264 2006 / /
15 20:48 2006 / /
16 1900 22.2 non-MC 0265 2006 / /
17 01:35 2006 / /
17 23:49 22.2 non-MC 0266 2007 / /
14 11:47 2007 / /
15 07:06 19.3 MC 15267 2007 / /
21 22:22 2007 / /
22 13:12 14.8 MC 59268 2007 / /
19 23:12 2007 / /
20 11:39 12.5 MC 0269 2008 / /
17 03:52 2008 / /
18 07:47 27.9 MC 88270 2008 / /
08 04:30 2008 / /
08 19:43 15.2 non-MC 0271 2008 / /
04 12:37 2008 / /
05 11:00 22.4 non-MC 0272 2008 / /
17 03:38 2008 / //