the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Propagation of interplanetary (IP) shocks near the Earth
Abstract. The solar wind monitor at the Sun-Earth L1 point has been used to estimate the arrival time of interplanetary (IP) shocks associated with coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and co-rotating interaction regions (CIRs). In standard estimates, including NASA/OMNI database, the radial propagation speed of the IP shock is assumed to be the same as the measured solar wind (proton) speed, although these speeds are known to be different in both the shock theory and CME observations. To diagnose the actual error in the arrival time of the IP shocks, we statistically compared the radial propagation speed of the IP shock with the measured solar wind speed at L1. The propagation speed is obtained from the time-of-propagation between the IP shock passage at the L1 monitoring spacecraft (SOHO and ACE) and at the Earth, the latter of which is represented by the geomagnetic sudden commencement (SC). In statistics, we limited to the IP shocks with a clear geomagnetic SC signature and with velocity profiles consistent between SOHO and ACE. During 1998–2022, 375 IP shocks satisfied such conditions. For the solar wind speed, the highest value during 15 min after the IP shock passage observed by the L1 monitoring spacecraft was used. We found the following tendencies. (1) As expected, actual arrival time of the IP shock to the Earth (represented by the geomagnetic SC) is often quite different from the predicted arrival time using the L1 velocity measurement. (2) For a majority of the cases, the geomagnetic SC is observed 0–10 min earlier than the predicted IP arrival time. (3) The speed difference is distributed asymmetrically toward faster propagation, with peak of the distribution about +10 %.
- Preprint
(1980 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 Jul 2026)
- AC1: 'some typo (unit for speed)', Masatoshi Yamauchi, 29 Apr 2026 reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1517', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Jun 2026
reply
Please read the comments about the draft in the attached document
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1 (general direcion of revision)', Masatoshi Yamauchi, 04 Jun 2026
reply
Thank you for your instructive commons to improve the presentation. Hey are indeed very useful to revise the manuscript.
For comments that are related to the readability, we add explanation or revise (re-organize the paragraphs) accordingly. Angle analyses for Figure 1 (comment on page 5 while analyses exists in page 13) is one such example.
For comments that require new tables/figures, we will consult if we add new table/figure/number (e.g., angle analyses that is commented in page 13) or we have good reason not to include them (data availability or avoiding too much information for readability).Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1517-AC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Masatoshi Yamauchi, 23 Jun 2026
reply
To answer the comment on line 271 "You could add a plot with the angle theta of the events analyzed to see that the cleanest sample have removed all the oblique events as you state in the text", we made the angle-velocity plot as the reviewer requested. We found that this plot allows us to improve our filtering method using two independent parameters (as shown in the attached figure). Accordingly we will replace Figures 3-6 using this new criterion. Revised Figure 5 (to be new Figure 6) is also attached. With this information, Figure 6 is not longer needed.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1 (general direcion of revision)', Masatoshi Yamauchi, 04 Jun 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 121 | 71 | 17 | 209 | 18 | 13 |
- HTML: 121
- PDF: 71
- XML: 17
- Total: 209
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
We forgot to add "/s" in page 5 (should be km/s instead of km) at several places when speed is estimated. This will be corrected.