4.4 Article

Predicting the corona for the 21 August 2017 total solar eclipse

Journal

NATURE ASTRONOMY
Volume 2, Issue 11, Pages 913-921

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41550-018-0562-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NASA [NNX16AH03G, NNX15AB65G]
  2. AFOSR
  3. National Science Foundation (NSF)
  4. NSF
  5. UK STFC
  6. Leverhulme Trust
  7. NSF Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program [AGS-1624438]
  8. Solar Terrestrial Program of the Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences of the NSF [AGS-1602461]
  9. Committee for Research and Exploration of the National Geographic Society [9878-16]
  10. NASA Massachusetts Space Grant Consortium
  11. Sigma Xi scientific research honor society
  12. Clare Booth Luce Foundation
  13. NASA (HSR program)
  14. NASA (LWS program)
  15. NASA [903473, NNX15AB65G, NNX16AH03G, 809603] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The total solar eclipse that occurred on 21 August 2017 across the United States provided an opportunity to test a magnetohydrodynamic model of the solar corona driven by measured magnetic fields. We used a new heating model based on the dissipation of Alfven waves, and a new energization mechanism to twist the magnetic field in filament channels. We predicted what the corona would look like one week before the eclipse. Here, we describe how this prediction was accomplished, and show that it compared favourably with observations of the eclipse in white light and extreme ultraviolet. The model allows us to understand the relationship of observed features, including streamers, corona! holes, prominences, polar plumes and thin rays, to the magnetic field. We show that the discrepancies between the model and observations arise from limitations in our ability to observe the Sun's magnetic field. Predictions of this kind provide opportunities to improve the models, forging the path to improved space weather prediction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available