On Coronal Mass Ejections and Configurations of the Ambient Magnetic Field Yang Liu Stanford University 3/17/2016 1 COSPAR 2008.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

The flare-CME relationship – determining factors (if any!) Sarah Matthews, Lucie Green, Hilary Magee, Louise Harra & Len Culhane MSSL, University College.

Advertisements

Evolution of Magnetic Setting in Flare Productive Active Regions Yixuan Li Space Weather Research Lab New Jersey Institute of Technology.

Lecture 9 Prominences and Filaments Filaments are formed in magnetic loops that hold relatively cool, dense gas suspended above the surface of the Sun,"

Observations on Current Sheet and Magnetic Reconnection in Solar Flares Haimin Wang and Jiong Qiu BBSO/NJIT.

The Relationship Between CMEs and Post-eruption Arcades Peter T. Gallagher, Chia-Hsien Lin, Claire Raftery, Ryan O. Milligan.

Solar flare hard X-ray spikes observed by RHESSI: a statistical study Jianxia Cheng Jiong Qiu, Mingde Ding, and Haimin Wang.

Observations and Magnetic Field Modeling of CMEs’ Source Regions Yingna Su Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Collaborators: Adriaan van Ballegooijen,

Coronal Mass Ejections without photospheric/chromospheric signatures Session organizers: Alexei Pevtsov (NSO) and Vasyl Yurchyshyn (BBSO) Discussion leaders:

Low-Energy Coronal Sources Observed with RHESSI Linhui Sui (CUA / NASA GSFC)

Interaction of coronal mass ejections with large-scale structures N. Gopalswamy, S. Yashiro, H. Xie, S. Akiyama, and P. Mäkelä IHY – ISWI Regional meeting.

Hard X-ray Production in a Failed Filament Eruption David, Alexander, Rui Liu and Holly R., Gilbert 2006 ApJ 653, L719 Related Paper: Ji. H. et al., 2003.

Non-Equilibrium Ionization Modeling of the Current Sheet in a Simulated Solar Eruption Chengcai Shen Co-authors: K. K. Reeves, J. C. Raymond, N. A. Murphy,

7 March th SECCHI Consortium Meeting Observing prominence dynamics with STEREO David Alexander, Rui Liu, and Holly Gilbert Rice University

Modeling the Magnetic Field Evolution of the December Eruptive Flare Yuhong Fan High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The Halo CMEs’ Speeds and Energy of Their Related Active Regions Yang Liu¹, and CDAW Source Identification Team² ¹Stanford University ² Including: E. Cliver,

On the New Classifications of Solar Coronal Mass Ejections based on the Observations by LASCO/SOHO Virendra K. Verma, Uttrakhand Space Application Center,

Two energy release processes for CMEs: MHD catastrophe and magnetic reconnection Yao CHEN Department of Space Science and Applied Physics Shandong University.

August 2006 IAU Assembly Halo CMEs and Configuration of Magnetic Field Yang Liu – Stanford University

3-D Pre-Eruption Magnetic Field Configuration Involved in 28 Oct 2003 Fast Halo CMEs Xuepu Zhao Stanford University 36 Th COSPAR Assembly Beijing, China,

September 2007LWS 2007 Halo CMEs and Configuration of the Ambient Magnetic Field Yang Liu – Stanford University

Prediction of Central Axis Direction of Magnetic Clouds Xuepu Zhao and Yang Liu Stanford University The West Pacific Geophysics Meeting, Beijing, China.

Relationship Between Magnetic Clouds and Earth-Directed CMEs: Space Weather Research in Stanford Solar Group Xuepu Zhao The Second International Space.

Progenitors to Geoeffective Coronal Mass Ejections: Filaments and Sigmoids David McKenzie, Robert Leamon Karen Wilson, Zhona Tang, Anthony Running Wolf.

1Yang Liu1997 May 12 Event The 1997 May 12 Event Yang Liu – Stanford University

Discussion Summary: Group B –Solar Active Regions And Their Production of Flares and Coronal Mass Ejections Discussion Leaders: George Fisher Hugh Hudson.

Center for Space Environment Modeling Ward Manchester University of Michigan Yuhong Fan High Altitude Observatory SHINE July.

C. May 12, 1997 Interplanetary Event. Ambient Solar Wind Models SAIC 3-D MHD steady state coronal model based on photospheric field maps CU/CIRES-NOAA/SEC.

POSTER TEMPLATE BY: Solar Flare and CME Prediction From Characteristics of 1075 Solar Cycle 23 Active Regions Determined Using.

Observations of December 2006 events Yang Liu – Stanford University

AR 10759/ May Event Overview

February 26, 2007 KIPAC Workshop on Magnetism Modeling/Inferring Coronal And Heliospheric Field From Photospheric Magnetic Field Yang Liu – Stanford University.

Study of magnetic helicity in solar active regions: For a better understanding of solar flares Sung-Hong Park Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research New.

Space Weather Forecast With HMI Magnetograms: Proposed data products Yang Liu, J. T. Hoeksema, and HMI Team.

C. May 12, 1997 Interplanetary Event. May 12, 1997 Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection Event CU/CIRES, NOAA/SEC, SAIC, Stanford Tatranska Lomnica, Slovakia,

Sung-Hong Park Space Weather Research Laboratory New Jersey Institute of Technology Study of Magnetic Helicity and Its Relationship with Solar Activities:

Photospheric Sources of Very Fast (>1100km/s) Coronal Mass Ejections Recent studies show that only very fast CMEs (> 1100 km/s) are capable of producing.

Solar Source and Magnetic Cloud Yang Liu – Stanford University

Twist & writhe of kink-unstable magnetic flux ropes I flux rope: helicity sum of twist and writhe: kink instability: twist  and writhe  (sum is constant)

Kinematics and coronal field strength of an untwisting jet in a polar coronal hole observed by SDO/AIA H. Chen, J. Zhang, & S. Ma ILWS , Beijing.

The Occurrence and Speed of CMEs Related to Magnetic Helicity Injection in Their Source Regions Sung-Hong Park Solar and Space Weather Research Group Korea.

1 C. “Nick” Arge Space Vehicles Directorate/Air Force Research Laboratory SHINE Workshop Aug. 2, 2007 Comparing the Observed and Modeled Global Heliospheric.

Flares in and their associations with CMEs N.V. Nitta, J.P.Wuelser, M. J. Aschwanden, J. R. Lemen (LMSAL), D. M. Zarro (Adnet, Inc.)

Coronal Mass Ejection As a Result of Magnetic Helicity Accumulation

1Yang Liu/Magnetic FieldHMI Science – 1 May 2003 Magnetic Field Goals – magnetic field & eruptive events Yang Liu Stanford University.

1 THE RELATION BETWEEN CORONAL EIT WAVE AND MAGNETIC CONFIGURATION Speakers: Xin Chen

Arrival time of halo coronal mass ejections In the vicinity of the Earth G. Michalek, N. Gopalswamy, A. Lara, and P.K. Manoharan A&A 423, (2004)

Coronal Dynamics - Can we detect MHD shocks and waves by Solar B ? K. Shibata Kwasan Observatory Kyoto University 2003 Feb. 3-5 Solar B ISAS.

A study of flare-associated X-ray plasma ejections. I. Association with coronal mass ejections Yeon-Han Kim, Y.-J. Moon, K.-S. Cho, Kap- Sung Kim, and.

Conclusions Using the Diffusive Equilibrium Mapping Technique we have connected a starting point of a field line on the photosphere with its final location.

Measurement of the Reconnection Rate in Solar Flares H. Isobe 2004/12/6 Taiyo-Zasshikai.

NoRH Observations of Prominence Eruption Masumi Shimojo Nobeyama Solar Radio Observatory NAOJ/NINS 2004/10/28 Nobeyama Symposium SeiSenRyo.

A comparison of CME-associated atmospheric waves observed in coronal (Fe XII 195A) and chromospheric ( He I 10830A) lines Holly R. Gilbert, Thomas E. Holzer,

Forecast of Geomagnetic Storm based on CME and IP condition R.-S. Kim 1, K.-S. Cho 2, Y.-J. Moon 3, Yu Yi 1, K.-H. Kim 3 1 Chungnam National University.

Simulation Study of Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetotail and Solar Corona Zhi-Wei Ma Zhejiang University & Institute of Plasma Physics Beijing,

Properties of CME Acceleration in the Low Corona Jie Zhang George Mason University SHINE June 28 – July 2, 2004 Big Sky - Montana Address.

III. APPLICATIONS of RECONNECTION Yohkoh Bright Pts Loops Holes A magnetic world T=few MK 1. Coronal Heating.

Global Forces in Eruptive Solar Flares: The Role of the Lorentz Force George H. Fisher, Benjamin J. Lynch, David J. Bercik, Brian T. Welsch, & Hugh S.

Anemone Structure of AR NOAA and Related Geo-Effective Flares and CMEs A. Asai 1 ( 浅井歩 ), T.T. Ishii 2, K. Shibata 2, N. Gopalswamy 3 1: Nobeyama.

Observations –Morphology –Quantitative properties Underlying Physics –Aly-Sturrock limit Present Theories/Models Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) S. K. Antiochos,

Introduction to Space Weather Jie Zhang CSI 662 / PHYS 660 Spring, 2012 Copyright © The Sun: Magnetic Structure Feb. 16, 2012.

Data-constrained Simulation of CME Initiation and Propagation Antonia Savcheva ESPM 2014 September 11, 2014 Collaborators: R. Evans, B. van der Holst,

October-November CMEs Yang Liu – Stanford University

Helicity Thinkshop 2009, Beijing Asymmetry of helicity injection in emerging active regions L. Tian, D. Alexander Rice University, USA Y. Liu Yunnan Astronomical.

Orientations of Halo CMEs and Magnetic Clouds

Series of high-frequency slowly drifting structure mapping the magnetic field reconnection M. Karlicky, A&A, 2004, 417,325.

The CME-Flare Relationship in Homologous Eruptive Events

Correlation between halo coronal mass ejections

Ju Jing, Vasyl B. Yurchyshyn, Guo Yang, Yan Xu, and Haimin Wang

-Short Talk- The soft X-ray characteristics of solar flares, both with and without associated CMEs Kay H.R.M., Harra L.K., Matthews S.A., Culhane J.L.,

Periodic Acceleration of Electrons in Solar Flares

Presentation transcript:

On Coronal Mass Ejections and Configurations of the Ambient Magnetic Field Yang Liu Stanford University 3/17/ COSPAR 2008

Outline This talk includes two topics: This talk includes two topics: does the background field affect CMEs’ occurrence? does the background field affect CMEs’ occurrence? does the background field influence CMEs’ propagation? does the background field influence CMEs’ propagation? 3/17/2016 2COSPAR 2008

CMEs’ occurrence: Motivation 3/17/2016 3COSPAR 2008 TRACE 171 movie. Courtesy of SchrijverEIT 195TRACE 1600 A. Courtesy of L. Green Confined eruption of kink instability. (FE hereafter) Full eruption of kink instability. (KI hereafter) Full eruption of torus instability. (TI hereafter)

CMEs’ occurrence: Motivation 3/17/2016 4COSPAR 2008 Failed eruption of kink instability (FE) Full eruption of kink instability (KI) Full eruption of torus instability (TI) Q: what causes these different types of eruptions?

CMEs’ occurrence: Motivation MHD simulations (FE vs KI) MHD simulations (FE vs KI) 3/17/2016 5COSPAR 2008 Courtesy: Kliem & Torok

CMEs’ occurrence: Motivation MHD simulations (FE vs KI) MHD simulations (FE vs KI) 3/17/2016 6COSPAR 2008 Courtesy: Kliem & Torok

CMEs’ occurrence: Motivation MHD simulation (KI vs TI) MHD simulation (KI vs TI) 3/17/2016 7COSPAR 2008 Fan & Gibson (2007)

CMEs’ occurrence: Motivation 3/17/2016 8COSPAR 2008 FE versus KI KI versus TI suggest gradient of the overlying field decides eruptions n(FE)<n(KI)<n(TI)

CMEs’ occurrence: Methodology Select erupted filaments in active regions; Select erupted filaments in active regions; Calculate background field using a potential field source surface model; Calculate background field using a potential field source surface model; At each height, compute overlying field by averaging horizontal field along the magnetic neutral line on the photosphere; At each height, compute overlying field by averaging horizontal field along the magnetic neutral line on the photosphere; Derive decay index. Derive decay index. 3/17/2016 9COSPAR 2008

CMEs’ occurrence: Sample We collect events from literature, and found: We collect events from literature, and found: 4 failed eruption (FE) cases (Green et al. 2007); 4 failed eruption (FE) cases (Green et al. 2007); 4 kink-instability (KI) full eruption cases (Green et al. 2007; Williams, et al. 2005); 4 kink-instability (KI) full eruption cases (Green et al. 2007; Williams, et al. 2005); 2 torus-instability (TI) full eruption cases (Schrijver et al. 2008). 2 torus-instability (TI) full eruption cases (Schrijver et al. 2008). 3/17/ COSPAR 2008

Result IDTypeFlareDate, Time (dd/mm/yy) ARFlux (e22 Max) 42 Mm (Gauss) 1FEX1.106/06/ FE /07/ FE /05/ FEM1.002/05/ KIC6.807/04/ KIC1.312/05/ KIM6.315/06/ KIX2.510/11/ TIM4.016/06/ TIM3.727/07/ /17/ COSPAR 2008 Decay index shows a clearly dividing line between failed eruptions and full eruptions, supportive of MHD simulations.

Result n(FE)<n(KI) & n(FE)<n(TI)  support MHD results; n(FE)<n(KI) & n(FE)<n(TI)  support MHD results; n(KI)~n(TI)  not support MHD results; n(KI)~n(TI)  not support MHD results; B(FE)>B(KI) & B(FE)>B(TI), probably due to, B(FE)>B(KI) & B(FE)>B(TI), probably due to, F(FE)>F(KI) & F(FE)>F(TI)  big active regions? F(FE)>F(KI) & F(FE)>F(TI)  big active regions? Big active regions usually produce more events: Big active regions usually produce more events: Eruptions may be caused by other mechanisms; Eruptions may be caused by other mechanisms; Initial heights of filaments are higher. Initial heights of filaments are higher. 12 TypeFlux (e22 Max) nB_t (Gauss) FE6.60± ± ±18.0 KI2.16± ± ±9.8 TI4.13± ± ±3.3 KI+TI2.81± ± ±8.2 3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008

CMEs’ occurrence: Summary MHD simulations suggest: n(FE)<n(KI)<n(TI). MHD simulations suggest: n(FE)<n(KI)<n(TI). This work indicates: This work indicates: n(FE)<n(KI) & n(FE)<n(TI); but n(FE)<n(KI) & n(FE)<n(TI); but n(KI)~n(TI); n(KI)~n(TI); Field strength at low altitude is much stronger for failed eruption than for full eruptions. Field strength at low altitude is much stronger for failed eruption than for full eruptions. 3/17/ COSPAR 2008

Outline This talk includes two topics: This talk includes two topics: does the background field affect CMEs’ occurrence? does the background field affect CMEs’ occurrence? does the background field influence CMEs’ propagation? does the background field influence CMEs’ propagation? 3/17/ COSPAR 2008

3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 CMEs’ propagations: Introduction Purpose: The purpose of this research is to study influence of background field for propagation of halo CMEs. Purpose: The purpose of this research is to study influence of background field for propagation of halo CMEs. The background field was found to have two different configurations: current sheet and non-current sheet (see, e. g. Shultz 1973; Wilcox et al. 1980; Neugebauer et al. 2002, 2004). Current-sheet boundary Non-current-sheet boundary 15

3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 Current-sheet boundary Non-current-sheet boundary These two configurations were also successfully reproduced by Zhao & Webb (2003) based on a Potential Field Source Surface model. 16

3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 current-sheet boundary Non-current-sheet boundary 17

18 3/17/2016 COSPAR D MHD simulation shows that type 2 and 3 CMEs are faster than type 1 (from Liu & Hayashi 2006). 3D MHD simulation shows that type 2 and 3 CMEs are faster than type 1 (from Liu & Hayashi 2006). Can observation support this result? Can observation support this result?

19 3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 CMEs’ propagation: Methodology Methodology: we classify the halo CMEs by the magnetic field computed based on the Potential Field Source Surface model, and then compare speed distributions of those three type CMEs. Methodology: we classify the halo CMEs by the magnetic field computed based on the Potential Field Source Surface model, and then compare speed distributions of those three type CMEs. Assumption: we assume that, statistically, these three types of halo CMEs should have a similar speed distribution in the initial phase. The initial speed of a CME is suggested to be related with characteristic of the associated flare (e. g. Moon et al. 2002, Cheng et al. 2003, Zhang et al. 2004, Qiu et al. 2004). Assumption: we assume that, statistically, these three types of halo CMEs should have a similar speed distribution in the initial phase. The initial speed of a CME is suggested to be related with characteristic of the associated flare (e. g. Moon et al. 2002, Cheng et al. 2003, Zhang et al. 2004, Qiu et al. 2004).

20 3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 CMEs’ propagation: Data We select the halo CME events from the CMEs catalog of Gopalswamy’s group. 99 halo CMEs in the period from 2000 to 2004 were chosen. The solar sources were identified by that group, and were confirmed by other groups/works. We select the halo CME events from the CMEs catalog of Gopalswamy’s group. 99 halo CMEs in the period from 2000 to 2004 were chosen. The solar sources were identified by that group, and were confirmed by other groups/works.

21 3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 Examples of the three types of CMEs Type 1 Type 2 Type 3

3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 CMEs’ propagation: Result Type 1Type 2Type 3 number Percentage39%47%14% Median speed (km/s) Mean speed (km/s)883± ± ±736 22

3/17/2016COSPAR 2008 Open: type 1 Filled: type 2 + type 3

3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 Distribution of CMEs versus flare class.

25 3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 A correlation was found between the speed of type 3 CMEs and the peak X-ray flux of the associated flares. No such correlations are found for types 1 and 2 CMEs.

26 3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 CMEs’ propagation: Summary Types 2 & 3 CMEs appear to be significantly faster than type 1. This effect is not biased by flare importance. Types 2 & 3 CMEs appear to be significantly faster than type 1. This effect is not biased by flare importance. It is shown that the background magnetic configuration associated with halo CMEs does play a role in deciding the speeds of the CMEs. It is shown that the background magnetic configuration associated with halo CMEs does play a role in deciding the speeds of the CMEs. A correlation was found between the speed of type 3 CMEs and the peak of X-ray flux of the associated flares. A correlation was found between the speed of type 3 CMEs and the peak of X-ray flux of the associated flares.

Conclusion In this talk, I shall try to answer two questions: In this talk, I shall try to answer two questions: does the background field affect CMEs’ occurrence? does the background field affect CMEs’ occurrence? does the background field influence CMEs’ propagation? does the background field influence CMEs’ propagation? Yes, configuration of background magnetic field influences occurrence and propagation of CMEs. Yes, configuration of background magnetic field influences occurrence and propagation of CMEs. 3/17/ COSPAR 2008