Can the coronal field’s susceptibility to emergence-induced eruption be estimated? SSPVSE Discussion Group B, Wed., 19 Oct. 2005 B. Welsch, Space Sciences.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

SPD June 16, 2003 Separators: Fault Lines in the Magnetic Field Dana Longcope Montana State University.

Advertisements

The magnetic nature of solar flares Paper by E.R. Priest & T.G. Forbes Review presented by Hui Song.

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

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

Energy and Helicity Budget of Four Solar Flares and Associated Magnetic Clouds. Maria D. Kazachenko, Richard C. Canfield, Dana Longcope, Jiong Qiu Montana.

CME/Flare Mechanisms Solar “minimum” event this January For use to VSE must be able to predict CME/flare Spiro K. Antiochos Naval Research Laboratory.

Colorado Research Associates Division, NorthWest Research Associates Magnetic Charge Topology (MCT) Analysis of NOAA AR8210 Graham Barnes NWRA/CoRA K.D.

Magnetic Helicity and Energetics in Solar Active Regions: Can we calculate them – why do we need them? Manolis K. Georgoulis JHU/APL Whistler, CA, 08/01/07.

Inductive Flow Estimation for HMI Brian Welsch, Dave Bercik, and George Fisher, SSL UC-Berkeley.

“Insights” on Coronal Hole Magnetic Fields From a High-Order PFSS Model D.J. Bercik and J.G. Luhmann Space Sciences Lab, UC Berkeley 1 FEW 2011, Aug 24.

Can We Determine Electric Fields and Poynting Fluxes from Vector Magnetograms and Doppler Shifts? by George Fisher, Brian Welsch, and Bill Abbett Space.

Evolution of Magnetic Helicity in the Corona During Flux Emergence Anna Malanushenko, Humed Yusuf, Dana Longcope.

SHINE Campaign Event: 1-2 May 1998 Brian Welsch (& Yan Li) Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley Introduction: Data, Context, etc. Work: Completed & Ongoing.

Relationships between flares and CMEs H.S. Hudson Space Sciences Lab, UC Berkeley.

Connections Between the Magnetic Carpet and the Unbalanced Corona: New Monte Carlo Models Steven R. Cranmer & Adriaan van Ballegooijen Harvard-Smithsonian.

1 ModelModelerU U (P) U (F) UUUU  U (P)  U (F) NLFFF J. McTiernan 8e327e321e325e314e31~0 Mod. Virial T. Metcalf 1e33-3e32~0--7e31 MCC/ IVM MCC/MDI-S.

M3 Session AIA/HMI Science Meeting D-1 : M3-Magnetic Field Data Products Data Product Development Session Chairs: R. Larsen/Y. Liu Status: [draft]

HMI – Synoptic Data Sets HMI Team Meeting Jan. 26, 2005 Stanford, CA.

Free Magnetic Energy: Crude Estimates by Brian Welsch, Space Sciences Lab, UC-Berkeley.

MSU Team: R. C. Canfield, D. W. Longcope, P. C. H. Martens, S. Régnier Evolution on the photosphere: magnetic and velocity fields 3D coronal magnetic fields.

1 SDO/HMI Products From Vector Magnetograms Yang Liu – Stanford University

Free Energies via Velocity Estimates B.T. Welsch & G.H. Fisher, Space Sciences Lab, UC Berkeley.

Incorporating Vector Magnetic Field Measurements into MHD models of the Solar Atmosphere W.P. Abbett Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley and B.T. Welsch,

Understanding Magnetic Eruptions on the Sun and their Interplanetary Consequences A Solar and Heliospheric Research grant funded by the DoD MURI program.

1 Synoptic Maps of Magnetic Field from MDI Magnetograms: polar field interpolation. Y. Liu, J. T. Hoeksema, X. P. Zhao, R. M. Larson – Stanford University.

Estimating Free Energy in AR 8210 Acknowledgements Graham Barnes (Colarado Research Associates, NWRA) Ravi Belur (Dept. of Physics, Montana State Univ)

CISM solar wind metrics M.J. Owens and the CISM Validation and Metrics Team Boston University, Boston MA Abstract. The Center for Space-Weather Modeling.

Summary of workshop on AR May One of the MURI candidate active regions selected for detailed study and modeling.

LCT Active Region Survey: Preliminary Results We proposed to calculate LCT flows (Li et al. 2004, Welsch et al., 2004) in N > 30 ARs, some of which produced.

Magnetogram Evolution Near Polarity Inversion Lines Brian Welsch and Yan Li Space Sciences Lab, UC-Berkeley, 7 Gauss Way, Berkeley, CA , USA.

Measuring, Understanding, and Using Flows and Electric Fields in the Solar Atmosphere to Improve Space Weather Prediction George H. Fisher Space Sciences.

The May 1,1998 and May 12, 1997 MURI events George H. Fisher UC Berkeley.

Flows in NOAA AR 8210: An overview of MURI progress to thru Feb.’04 Modelers prescribe fields and flows (B, v) to drive eruptions in MHD simulations MURI.

On the Origin of Strong Gradients in Photospheric Magnetic Fields Brian Welsch and Yan Li Space Sciences Lab, UC-Berkeley, 7 Gauss Way, Berkeley, CA ,

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

2007 PROM WORKSHOP Space Sciences Lab / UC-Berkeley Sheared-Field Prominences and the Eruptive Implications of Magnetic Topology B. J. Lynch, Y. Li, J.

Using Photospheric Flows Estimated from Vector Magnetogram Sequences to Drive MHD Simulations B.T. Welsch, G.H. Fisher, W.P. Abbett, D.J. Bercik, Space.

The nature of impulsive solar energetic particle events N. V. Nitta a, H. S. Hudson b, M. L. Derosa a a Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory.

Center for Space Environment Modeling W. Manchester 1, I. Roussev, I.V. Sokolov 1, 1 University of Michigan AGU Berkeley March.

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.

UCB MURI Team Introduction An overview of ongoing work to understand a well observed, eruptive active region, along with closely related studies…..

2002 May 1MURI VMG mini-workshop1` Solar MURI Vector Magnetogram Mini-Workshop Using Vector Magnetograms in Theoretical Models: Plan of Action.

Summary of UCB MURI workshop on vector magnetograms Have picked 2 observed events for targeted study and modeling: AR8210 (May 1, 1998), and AR8038 (May.

Session C8 Coronal Data Products AIA/HMI Science Team Meeting 16 February 2006 Marc DeRosa.

The May 1997 and May 1998 MURI events George H. Fisher UC Berkeley.

Data-Driven MHD Modeling of CME Events

Helicity: where it comes from and what it tells us Dana Longcope, MSU Anna Malanushenko, MSU/LMSAL 8/11/10Canfield-fest Thanks: Graham Barnes, CoRA B.

Estimating Free Magnetic Energy from an HMI Magnetogram by Brian T. Welsch Space Sciences Lab, UC-Berkeley Several methods have been proposed to estimate.

Science Data Products – HMI Magnetic Field Images Pipeline 45-second Magnetic line-of-sight velocity on full disk Continuum intensity on full disk Vlos.

Coronal Heating of an Active Region Observed by XRT on May 5, 2010 A Look at Quasi-static vs Alfven Wave Heating of Coronal Loops Amanda Persichetti Aad.

First Results on Solar Irradiance Variability from PROBA2/LYRA/SWAP R. Kariyappa (guest investigator), S. T. Kumar, M. Dominique, D. Berghmans, L. Dame,

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

Intriguing Observations of a Failed Eruption? We present observations of a (partially) failed eruption of a magnetic flux rope following an M9.3 flare.

Semi-Empirical MHD Modeling of the Solar Wind Igor V. Sokolov, Ofer Cohen, Tamas I. Gombosi CSEM, University of Michigan Ilia I Roussev, Institute for.

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

Calculating Magnetic Energy in Active Regions Using Coronal Loops for AR and AR Presentation by, Joseph B. Jensen.

Analysis Magnetic Reconnection in Solar Flares: the Importance of Spines and Separators Angela Des Jardins 1, Richard Canfield 1, Dana Longcope 1, Emily.

Evolutionary Characteristics of Magnetic Helicity Injection in Active Regions Hyewon Jeong and Jongchul Chae Seoul National University, Korea 2. Data and.

ITT: SEP forecasting Mike Marsh. Solar radiation storms Solar energetic particles (SEPs)

What we can learn from active region flux emergence David Alexander Rice University Collaborators: Lirong Tian (Rice) Yuhong Fan (HAO)

WG2: Magnetographs and solar-disk white-light imagers

Dimming analysis 13/05/05 Gemma Attrill

Estimating Free Energy in AR 8210

Magnetic Topology of the 29 October 2003 X10 Flare

Exploring Large-scale Coronal Magnetic Field Over Extended Longitudes With EUVI EUVI B EIT EUVI A 23-Mar UT Nariaki Nitta, Marc DeRosa, Jean-Pierre.

Solar and Heliospheric Physics

Preflare State Rust et al. (1994) 太陽雑誌会.

Presentation transcript:

Can the coronal field’s susceptibility to emergence-induced eruption be estimated? SSPVSE Discussion Group B, Wed., 19 Oct B. Welsch, Space Sciences Lab, UC-Berkeley Flux emergence might induce flares and CMEs: sufficient, but not necessary, condition (?). Can this relationship be understood well enough to allow “susceptibility estimation”?

Flux emergence perturbs the coronal field, 1: close-up of AR on Oct 27 at 1:35UT 3D images show specific features of the magnetic field topology of AR Field lines with different colors represent the four distinct flux systems. What happens as AR10488 continues to emerge on this day? Images courtesy I. Roussev (SHINE, 2005)

32 hours later The emergence of AR10488 results in the appearance of more null points in the corona! There are more magnetic flux systems of interest now, and therefore more colors… Images courtesy I. Roussev (SHINE, 2005) Flux emergence perturbs the coronal field, 2: close-up of AR on Oct 28 at 9:35UT

Emergence alters both the potential and actual fields, but the relation between changes in the two is unclear. Coronal field, B, should evolve toward lower energy state  “goal” field. Q: Which is the true goal field? B (P), B (PFSS), or B (LFFF) ?

Emergence alters both the potential and actual fields, but the relation between changes in the two is unclear. Coronal field, B, should evolve toward lower energy state  “goal” field. Q: Which is the true goal field? B (P), B (PFSS), or B (LFFF) ? We can model B (P), B (PFSS), and B (LFFF) but we can’t necessarily model B (cf., Q# 1). Q: Which changes in B (P), B (PFSS), or B (LFFF) matter, if any? Topology? Energy?

Perturbation to PFSS topology from flux emergence can be modelled. PFSS field evolves due to emerging active region from ANMHD simulations. Analogously, could impose simulated flux emergence into actual synoptic magnetogram. Courtesy Y. Li et al. (fall AGU, 2001)

One could conduct Monte Carlo simulations of flux emergence into a synoptic magnetogram. Flux emergence: Hale-like; where ARs already exist (K.Harvey) Q: Which changes matter?  open ?  cl ?  E?  (footpoint)?

Evaluating topological changes to PFSS due to flux emergence is not trivial. Quantifying changes in footpoints requires field line integration (time consuming). Q: Could changes in PFSS harmonic expansion coefficients, g i and h i, be a proxy for changes in PFSS topology? –If so, {dg i /dt, dh i /dt} would correlate with CMEs. –These data are on-line (KPNO, etc.), but such an analysis has not been performed.

Q: Do changes in “goal field” energy matter? Q: Does a sudden drop in the energy E (P) of B (P) mean more free energy is available? Q: What does a sudden rise in E (P) mean? –Actual energy (& free energy) probably scale with potential field energy.

Conclusion: physics-based characterization of susceptibility to eruption due to flux emergence is possible. Quantitative modeling has not been done. –cf., qualitative models by Luhmann et al. Feasibility (computational resources) and utility (predictive capability) are uncertain. (Good project for a student?)

Emerging ARs are enclosed by a separatrix surface, which generally has a current sheet. Longcope et al. (2005) analyzed such an emergence and showed new connections form after ~24 hours.

Blank