Comparison of NLFFF Extrapolations for Chromospheric and Photospheric Magnetograms of AR 10486 J. McTiernan SSL/UCB SHINE 2005 Workhsop.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Estimating the magnetic energy in solar magnetic configurations Stéphane Régnier Reconnection seminar on Thursday 15 December 2005.
Advertisements

Observations and NLFFF Modeling of AR Yingna Su 1,2 Collaborators: A. A. Van Ballegooijen 1, E. E. Deluca 1, Leon Golub 1 P. Grigis 1, B. Lites 3,
Can We Determine Electric Fields and Poynting Fluxes from Vector Magnetograms and Doppler Shifts? by George Fisher, Brian Welsch, and Bill Abbett Space.
Free Magnetic Energy and Flare Productivity of Active Regions Jing et al. ApJ, 2010, April 20 v713 issue, in press.
Resolving the 180 Degree Ambiguity in Vector Magnetic Fields T. Metcalf.
RHESSI/GOES Observations of the Non-flaring Sun from 2002 to J. McTiernan SSL/UCB.
RHESSI/GOES Xray Analysis using Multitemeprature plus Power law Spectra. J.McTiernan (SSL/UCB)
Reducing the Divergence of Optimization-Generated Magnetic Fields J.M. McTiernan, B.T. Welsch, G.H. Fisher, D.J. Bercik, W.P. Abbett Space Sciences Lab.
Connections Between the Magnetic Carpet and the Unbalanced Corona: New Monte Carlo Models Steven R. Cranmer & Adriaan van Ballegooijen Harvard-Smithsonian.
Non-linear FFF Model J.McTiernan 17-May Optimization method (cont): Iterative process, start with Potential field, extrapolated from magnetogram.
RHESSI/GOES Xray Analysis using Multitemeprature plus Power law Spectra. J.McTiernan (SSL/UCB) ABSTRACT: We present spectral fits for RHESSI and GOES solar.
HMI & Photospheric Flows 1.Review of methods to determine surface plasma flow; 2.Comparisons between methods; 3.Data requirements; 4.Necessary computational.
Non-linear FFF Model: AR8210 J.McTiernan 1-Mar-2004.
Free Magnetic Energy: Crude Estimates by Brian Welsch, Space Sciences Lab, UC-Berkeley.
NLFFF Solar and Model Results J.McTiernan NLFFF workshop 5-jun-2006.
NJIT-seminar Newark, NJITWiegelmann et al: Nonlinear force-free fields 1 Nonlinear force-free extrapolation of coronal magnetic.
RHESSI/GOES Observations of the Non-flaring Sun from 2002 to J. McTiernan SSL/UCB.
Nonlinear Force Free Field Extrapolation for AR J.McTiernan 7-Nov-2005.
Feb. 2006HMI/AIA Science Team Mtg.1 Determining the 3D Magnetic Field Geometry A. A. van Ballegooijen, E. E. DeLuca, M. Bobra Smithsonian Astrophysical.
Magnetic Field Extrapolations And Current Sheets B. T. Welsch, 1 I. De Moortel, 2 and J. M. McTiernan 1 1 Space Sciences Lab, UC Berkeley 2 School of Mathematics.
Nonlinear Force Free Field Models for AR J.McTiernan, H.Hudson (SSL/UCB) T.Metcalf (LMSAL)
Inductive Local Correlation Tracking or, Getting from One Magnetogram to the Next Goal (MURI grant): Realistically simulate coronal magnetic field in eruptive.
Predicting Coronal Emissions with Multiple Heating Rates Loraine Lundquist George Fisher Tom Metcalf K.D. Leka Jim McTiernan AGU 2005.
Estimating Free Energy in AR 8210 Acknowledgements Graham Barnes (Colarado Research Associates, NWRA) Ravi Belur (Dept. of Physics, Montana State Univ)
Chromospheric Vector B for 2003 Oct 29 (A Work in Progress) T. Metcalf, K.D. Leka, D. Mickey MURI Meeting, 2004 Mar 1.
Center for Space Environment Modeling Ward Manchester University of Michigan Yuhong Fan High Altitude Observatory SHINE July.
Preliminary Results from Nonlinear Field Extrapolations using Hinode Boundary Data Marc DeRosa (LMSAL), on behalf of the NLFFF Team* WG1 ~ SHINE 2007 *Karel.
Ward Manchester University of Michigan Coupling of the Coronal and Subphotospheric Magnetic Field in Active Regions by Shear Flows Driven by The Lorentz.
Incorporating Magnetogram Data into Time-Dependent Coronal Field Models By George Fisher, Bill Abbett, Dave Bercik, Jim McTiernan, and Brian Welsch Space.
Stokes Inversion 180  Azimuth Ambiguity Resolution Non-linear Force-free field (NLFFF) Extrapolation of Magnetic Field Progress in Setting up Data Processing.
Nonlinear Force-Free Field Modeling AIA/HMI Science Team Meeting Session C2 14 February 2006 Marc DeRosa on behalf of the “NLFFF Consortium” (Karel Schrijver,
Data-Driven Simulations of AR8210 W.P. Abbett Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley SHINE Workshop 2004.
Free Magnetic Energy in Solar Active Regions above the Minimum-Energy Relaxed State (Regnier, S., Priest, E.R ApJ) Use magnetic field extrapolations.
Study of magnetic helicity in solar active regions: For a better understanding of solar flares Sung-Hong Park Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research New.
NLFFF Extrapolation for AR J.McTiernan. *Chromospheric* Vector Magnetogram of AR (from Tom Metcalf) 18:46 UT Image is of Line of sight B (B.
Tests of NLFFF Models of AR J.McTiernan SSL/UCB.
NLFFF Energy Measurement of AR8210 J.McTiernan SSL/UCB.
Detection of Emerging Sunspot Regions in the Solar Interior Stathis Ilonidis, Junwei Zhao, and Alexander Kosovichev Stanford University LoHCo Workshop.
The Effect of Sub-surface Fields on the Dynamic Evolution of a Model Corona Goals :  To predict the onset of a CME based upon reliable measurements of.
Active Region Flux Transport Observational Techniques, Results, & Implications B. T. Welsch G. H. Fisher
B. T. Welsch Space Sciences Lab, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA J. M. McTiernan Space Sciences.
Optimization NLFFF Model J.McTiernan SSL/UCB HMI/SDO 27-Jan-2005.
2002 May 1MURI VMG mini-workshop1` Solar MURI Vector Magnetogram Mini-Workshop Using Vector Magnetograms in Theoretical Models: Plan of Action.
Introduction The primary geomagnetic storm indicator is the Dst index. This index has a well established ‘recipe’ by which ground-based observations are.
1 What is the best way to use the chromospheric field information in coronal field extrapolation? Current state of art are nonlinear force-free extrapolations.
The Solar Corona Steven R. Spangler Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Iowa.
Extrapolation of magnetic fields
Comparison on Calculated Helicity Parameters at Different Observing Sites Haiqing Xu (NAOC) Collaborators: Hongqi, Zhang, NAOC Kirill Kuzanyan, IZMIRAN,
Frontiers in Modeling Magnetic Flux Emergence and the Development of Solar Eruptive Activities Organizers: Mark Linton and Yuhong Fan SHINE Liaison: KD.
Optimization_fff as a Data Product J.McTiernan HMI/AIA Meeting 16-Feb-2006.
Practical Calculation of Magnetic Energy and Relative Magnetic Helicity Budgets in Solar Active Regions Manolis K. Georgoulis Research Center for Astronomy.
Nonlinear force-free coronal magnetic field extrapolation scheme for solar active regions Han He, Huaning Wang, Yihua Yan National Astronomical Observatories,
Analysis Magnetic Reconnection in Solar Flares: the Importance of Spines and Separators Angela Des Jardins 1, Richard Canfield 1, Dana Longcope 1, Emily.
SDO-meeting Napa, Wiegelmann et al: Nonlinear force-free fields 1 Nonlinear force-free field modeling for SDO T. Wiegelmann, J.K. Thalmann,
On the Structure of Magnetic Field and Radioemission of Sunspot-related Source in Solar Active Region T. I. Kaltman, V. M. Bogod St. Petersburg branch.
Comparison of STAFF-SA and WBD Magnetic components of intense whistler-mode chorus Prepared by Ondrej Santolik 14th CAA Cross-Calibration meeting, York,
Session 10 SHINE Workshop, June 23-27, 2008 Vector Magnetic Data Input into Global Models (Session 10) Chairs: Marc DeRosa and Ilia Roussev Working Group.
WG2 Sessions SHINE Workshop, July 30–August 3, K.D. Leka: “Promises and Reality of Analysis Using Magnetic Field Data” Gave update on present and.
Observations and nonlinear force-free field modeling of active region Y. Su, A. van Ballegooijen, B. W. Lites, E. E. DeLuca, L. Golub, P. C. Grigis,
1 Yongliang Song & Mei Zhang (National Astronomical Observatory of China) The effect of non-radial magnetic field on measuring helicity transfer rate.
The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) on NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) has continuously measured the vector magnetic field, intensity, and.
Ciro Bigongiari, Salvatore Mangano, Results of the optical properties of sea water with the OB system.
Considerations on using Solar-B observations to model the coronal field over active regions Karel Schrijver, Marc DeRosa, Ted Tarbell SOT-17 Science Meeting;
A Method for Solving 180 Degree Ambiguity in Observed Solar Transverse Magnetic Field Huaning Wang National Astronomical Observatories Chinese Academy.
2. Method outline2. Method outline Equation of relative helicity (Berger 1985): - : the fourier transform of normal component of magnetic field on the.
Extrapolating Coronal Magnetic Fields T. Metcalf.
SDO-meeting Napa, Wiegelmann et al: Nonlinear force-free fields 1 A brief summary about nonlinear force-free coronal magnetic field modelling.
NLFFF Energy Measurement of AR8210
Diagnosing kappa distribution in the solar corona with the polarized microwave gyroresonance radiation Alexey A. Kuznetsov1, Gregory D. Fleishman2 1Institute.
B. L. Alterman & Justin C. Kasper July 18, 2019
Presentation transcript:

Comparison of NLFFF Extrapolations for Chromospheric and Photospheric Magnetograms of AR J. McTiernan SSL/UCB SHINE 2005 Workhsop

Fig 1: Photospheric magnetogram, AR 10486, 29-OCT UT (from K.D. Leka) Chromospheric magnetogram, AR 10486, 29-OCT UT (from T.R. Metcalf) BxBy Bz BxByBz

Fig 2: Field extrapolations, via optimization method (Wheatland, Sturrock, Roumelotis 2000) Top: Photospheric Bottom: Chromospheric

Quantitative Comparison Metrics for Field Vectors Cauchy-Schwarz: Good = 1.0 Field direction Mean Vector Error: Good = 0.0 Field Magnitude

Fig 3:Comparison for the chromospheric B field and the extrapolation from photospheric field 3200 km from the photosphere.

Fig 4: Comparison of the mean values of the metrics, with photospheric extrapolation shifted up by 1 grid point (approx km):

Fig 5: Average fractional uncertainty in the extrapolated field, assuming uncertainty of 100/50G in chromospheric Bxy/Bz and 50/25 G in photospheric Bxy/Bz, from a monte carlo calculation:

Fig 6: Average (median) variation of metrics from ideal values normalized by uncertainty:

Discussion: Figure 1: the two magnetic fields differ slightly in Bz, more in Bx and By. The chromospheric one is more noisy. Figure 2: the field lines look relatively similar close to the surface, including some long, filament-like lines, but not so similar farther away. Figure 3: we use the Cauchy and mean error metrics for quantitative comparison. (Only for relatively strong fields, to avoid having the result overwhelmed by noise). For the Cauchy metric, there is good agreement except for a few points. For the mean error, the agreement is less good. Figure 4: The agreement seems to decrease with height. Figure 5: The idea here is to determine how well the field extrapolations match given the uncertainties in the measured fields. These are the error bars in the extrapolated field. Figure 6: Given uncertainties in B, you can get uncertainties in the two metrics. This shows the deviation of each metric divided by its uncertainty. For a good fit, this number should be of order 1.

Conclusions: The agreement between the extrapolations from the photospheric and chromospheric magnetograms is good for the Cauchy metric close to the surface, but not good at larger heights. But if all you need is the direction of the B field, or pictures of B field lines in the low corona, then the photospheric magnetogram can be used, even though the field in the photosphere is not force-free. This is helpful since photospheric magnetograms are more readily available. The agreement between the extrapolations for the mean error metric, which is sensitive to the difference in the magnitude of each magnetic field component, is not very good at all. This work was supported by a NASA SEC theory grant. The processing of the magnetogram data, by T. Metcalf & K.D. Leka was supported by by NASA grant NAG and by AFOSR contract F C-0019.