1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions The role of coronal mass ejections in the solar cycle evolution of.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

J. T. Gosling Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics

Advertisements

Uncovering the Global Slow Solar Wind Liang Zhao and Thomas H. Zurbuchen Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, University of Michigan.

On the link between the solar energetic particles and eruptive coronal phenomena On the link between the solar energetic particles and eruptive coronal.

An overview of the cycle variations in the solar corona Louise Harra UCL Department of Space and Climate Physics Mullard Space Science.

The Solar Corona B. C. Low High Altitude Observatory National Center for Atmospheric Research The National Center for Atmospheric Research is operated.

ICMEs and Magnetic Clouds Session Summary Charlie Farrugia and Lan Jian.

1 Comments on Leif Svalgaard Journal Club Discussion Stanford University Wed. 19 Feb

Heliospheric Transients and the Imprint of Their Solar Sources.

Reviewing the Summer School Solar Labs Nicholas Gross.

The Solar Wind and Heliosphere Bob Forsyth - 15 th October 2007 TOPICS The Sun – interior and atmosphere Origin of the solar wind Formation of the heliosphere.

Weaker Solar Wind Over the Protracted Solar Minimum Dave McComas Southwest Research Institute San Antonio, TX With input from and thanks to Heather Elliott,

1 Diagnostics of Solar Wind Processes Using the Total Perpendicular Pressure Lan Jian, C. T. Russell, and J. T. Gosling How does the magnetic structure.

“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.

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

Chip Manchester 1, Fang Fang 1, Bart van der Holst 1, Bill Abbett 2 (1)University of Michigan (2)University of California Berkeley Study of Flux Emergence:

Evolution of the Large-Scale Magnetic Field Over Three Solar Cycles Todd Hoeksema.

Forecasting Super CME Disturbances 1.Super CMEs, such as the 2000 July 14, 2003 October 28, 2003 October 29, and 2006 December 13 full halo CMEs, generate.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Ward Manchester University of Michigan Coupling of the Coronal and Subphotospheric Magnetic Field in Active Regions by Shear Flows Driven by The Lorentz.

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

1 July 31, 2007 SHINE 2007 – Heliospheric Plasma Sheet The Unusual Heliospheric Current Sheet at the End of Cycle 23 A Comparison of Cycles 21,22,& 23.

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

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

Session 6 Key Questions for Understanding This Unusual Solar Minimum Alan Gabriel Todd Hoeksema Janet Luhmann Bill Matthaeus Neil Sheeley.

Solar Source and Magnetic Cloud Yang Liu – Stanford University

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

RT Modelling of CMEs Using WSA- ENLIL Cone Model

Thomas Zurbuchen University of Michigan The Structure and Sources of the Solar Wind during the Solar Cycle.

Flux Transport into the Heliosphere

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

The Sun’s Global Photospheric and Coronal Magnetic Fields Duncan H Mackay Solar Physics Group University of St. Andrews.

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.

Outline of WG 2 Sessions: Interplanetary Phenomena Working Group Leaders: Ian Richardson and Ilia Roussev.

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

Observational Tests of Suprathermal Particle Acceleration (Dayeh/Hill  Hill/Desai) WORKING GROUP SUMMARY.

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)

New STEREO/SECCHI Processing for Heliospheric Transients David F. Webb ISR, Boston College, MA, USA New England Space Science Consortium.

The Solar Wind.

Faraday Rotation: Unique Measurements of Magnetic Fields in the Outer Corona Justin C. Kasper (UM), Ofer Cohen (SAO), Steven Spangler (Iowa), Gaetan Le.

The Rise of Solar Cycle 24: Magnetic Fields from the Dynamo through the Photosphere and Corona and Connecting to the Heliosphere Part 2: Corona & Heliophere.

Radial Evolution of Major Solar Wind Structures Lan K. Jian Thanks to: C.T. Russell, J.G. Luhmann, R.M. Skoug Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences Institute.

Evolution of Magnetic Fields from the Sun’s Surface to the Heliopause of one Solar Cycle Nathan Schwadron, Boston University.

Solar Cycle Variation of the Heliospheric Magnetic Flux, Solar Wind Flux and Galactic Cosmic Rays Charles W. Smith, Nathan A. Schwadron Ken G. McCracken,

Solar Magnetic Field Reversal V J Pizzo SHINE Workshop August 18, 2002.

CME Propagation CSI 769 / ASTR 769 Lect. 11, April 10 Spring 2008.

WSM Whole Sun Month Sarah Gibson If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth still ringing?

A Numerical Study of the Breakout Model for Coronal Mass Ejection Initiation P. MacNeice, S.K. Antiochos, A. Phillips, D.S. Spicer, C.R. DeVore, and K.

Variability of the Heliospheric Magnetic Flux: ICME effects S. T. Lepri, T. H. Zurbuchen The University of Michigan Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic,

Solar Wind Helium Abundance and the Minimum Speed of the Solar Wind

2. Method outline2. Method outline Equation of relative helicity (Berger 1985): - : the fourier transform of normal component of magnetic field on the.

The heliospheric magnetic flux density through several solar cycles Géza Erdős (1) and André Balogh (2) (1) MTA Wigner FK RMI, Budapest, Hungary (2) Imperial.

1 Test Particle Simulations of Solar Energetic Particle Propagation for Space Weather Mike Marsh, S. Dalla, J. Kelly & T. Laitinen University of Central.

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

Manuela Temmer Institute of Physics, University of Graz, Austria Tutorial: Coronal holes and space weather consequences.

CME rate: 1/3 (4) day -1 at solar min (max) [LASCO CME catalogue. Yahsiro et al., 2005] |B| at 1 AU: 5 (8) nT at solar min (max) [OMNI data] D (fraction.

Inferring the Heliospheric Magnetic Field Back to the Maunder Minimum

Evolution of the heliospheric magnetic field

On the three-dimensional configuration of coronal mass ejections

Y. C.-M. Liu, M. Opher, O. Cohen P.C.Liewer and T.I.Gombosi

Solar Modulation Davide Grandi AMS Group-INFN Milano-Bicocca.

Solar cycle variation of the heliospheric magnetic field

From the Convection Zone to the Heliosphere

Solar Flare Energy Partition into Energetic Particle Acceleration

Reconnection of Loops and Open Field Lines

Presentation transcript:

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions The role of coronal mass ejections in the solar cycle evolution of the heliospheric magnetic field M.J. Owens, N.U. Crooker, N.A. Schwadron, H.E. Spence and W.J. Hughes Center for space physics Boston University

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Overview 1.Background 2.Heliospheric flux variation 3.Heliospheric polarity reversal 4.Suprathermal electrons 5.Conclusions

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Solar cycle: photosphere 1995 Mt. Wilson magnetographs 2001

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Solar cycle: Heliosphere Jones et al., 2003e.g. Richardson et al., 2002

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Solar cycle: corona Yang Liu, SHINE 2006 Riley et al., 2006

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions How does the coronal field evolve? Wang & Sheeley: Emerging loops bring about field reversal by destruction of existing open flux –Series of PFSS solutions Fisk & Schwadron: Open flux is conserved, but reconfigured by reconnection B.C. Low: Magnetic helicity conservation means potential state cannot be reached by reconnection alone –CMEs required to shed the helicity –CMEs bodily remove flux to allow field reversal

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Influence of CMEs on corona Luhmann et al., 1998

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Heliospheric flux variation How can you add flux to the heliosphere?

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Suprathermal electrons a b c d

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Interplanetary CMEs Crooker et al., 2004 Marubashi., 1997

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions ICMEs contain closed fields Riley et al., AU: Shodhan et al., AU: Crooker et al., 2002

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Flux added by ICMEs must be removed No “flux catastrophe” –McComas et al, 1992 –Equivalent fields must open Two possibilities: –Disconnect open fields –Open CME closed loops via interchange reconnection (Crooker et al., 2002) a b

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Flux added by a single CME Owens and Crooker, 2007

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Timescale for flux opening Disconnection and interchange reconnection add/remove flux at same rate if rate of reconnection is the same Assume exponential decay to flux from a single CME added to heliosphere t – time since launch φ – flux contained in CME D – fraction of flux which opens at launch λ – decay constant Interchange Disconnection 2

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Heliospheric flux budget Assume a constant CME rate: Equate open flux at min/max (i.e., assume variation in |B| is entirely due to ICMEs) T 1/2 ~ 40 days

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions LASCO-driven simulation LASCO CMEs have been catalogued. Use LASCO CME times to drive simulation. At each time-step, insert new CMEs and decay flux from existing ICMEs. Observed variability in |B| can be very well matched Owens and Crooker, 2006

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Suprathermal electrons Method of reconnection important for heliospheric field evolution Simple picture: –Interchange: no EDs, decay in CSE –Disconnection: EDs, no decay in CSE a b

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Observable test Owens et al, 2007 Crooker and Webb, 2006

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Crooker et al, 2008

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Transport of flux Interchange reconnection transports open flux across CME footpoints

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions CME footpoints Polarity of CME footpoints. –Magnetic cloud observations Bothmer and Schwenn, 1998

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Rise phase Time Owens et al, 2007

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Declining phase Time Owens et al, 2007

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Prediction Owens et al, 2007 Crooker and Webb, 2006

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Number of CMEs required to reverse polarity: Is there sufficient flux? Timescale for such a reversal d > 5 o

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Suprathermal electrons Method of reconnection important for heliospheric field evolution Simple picture: –Interchange: no EDs, decay in CSE –Disconnection: EDs, no decay in CSE

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Suprathermal electron scattering Fraction of total electron density Heliocentric distance (AU) core halo strahl Maksimovic et al., 2005 Hammond et al., 1996

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Owens and Crooker, 2007

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions How long do closed loops retain the CSE signature? Scattering process is still a topic of research Empirically match observed scattering rate –Can a constant scattering rate reproduce the switch with distance of focusing to scattering?

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Numerical simulation Parker Spiral magnetic field Halo electrons move into weaker fields Magnetic moment –μ = V PERP 2 /B

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Simulation with pitch-angle scattering

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions What’s going on?

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Next steps.. Generalise electron model to closed loops Determine length of loop when CSE signature is removed –If it is large, we can we discount reconnection because of too few CSE signatures? –What are the implications for the heliospheric flux budget? –Is the scattering rate in magnetic clouds the same as in the ambient solar wind?

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Summary The solar cycle manifests itself in the heliosphere as: –A doubling of the heliospheric flux –A reversal/rotation of the heliospheric current sheet Coronal mass ejections can explain these observations by: –Temporarily adding closed flux to the heliosphere –Transporting open flux across CME footpoints by interchange reconnection close to the Sun The distance at which closed loops lose their identity is important for the heliospheric flux budget

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Extra slides

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions The solar cycle - sunspots

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Comparison with Ulysses

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Simulation – sine-fit Use simple sine-wave fit to observed CME frequency Owens and Crooker, 2006

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Heliospheric flux Solar cycle variation –Approximately doubles over solar cycle –Returns to same value each minimum Richardson et al [2002]: Variation is carried by ambient solar wind, not associated with ICME signatures. Richardson et al., 2002

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Suprathermal electrons for a single CME

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions LASCO-driven simulation At each time-step, insert new CMEs and decay flux from existing ICMEs. Both interchange and disconnection can explain CSE/EDs observed Different scattering distance

1. Background2. Flux variation3. Polarity reversal4. Electron evolution5. Conclusions Pich-angle scattering