SUB-GROUP 1: Surface Solar Magnetic Fields  The central question: Can we infer the orientation of Bz of an ICME at 1 AU by focusing on the study of the.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

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

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.

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

Reviewing the Summer School Solar Labs Nicholas Gross.

The Relation between Filament Skew Angle and Magnetic Helicity of Active Regions Masaoki HAGINO, Y.J. MOON (Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute)

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.

STEREO AND SPACE WEATHER Variable conditions in space that can have adverse effects on human life and society Space Weather: Variable conditions in space.

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

SSPVE Discussion Group B Question 5 To what extent is it possible to predict the emergence of active regions before they reach the photosphere, or to predict.

September 2006 CISM All Hand Meeting Properties of Solar Active Regions and Solar Eruptive Events Yang Liu -- Stanford University

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

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

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

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.

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,

Inductive Local Correlation Tracking or, Getting from One Magnetogram to the Next Goal (MURI grant): Realistically simulate coronal magnetic field in eruptive.

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.

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

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.

Coronal Ejecta in October - November of 2003 and predictions of the associated geomagnetic events 1 Big Bear Solar Observatory, New Jersey Institute of.

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

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,

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.

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.

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

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

Distinguishing Eruptive from Non-Eruptive Solar Active Regions Manolis K. Georgoulis JHU/APL Johns Hopkins Rd., Laurel, MD Durham, NH, 06/27/06.

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.

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.

Solar Source and Magnetic Cloud Yang Liu – Stanford University

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

Magnetic Structures of Active Regions and their Link to Coronal Mass Ejections Vasyl Yurchyshyn, Big Bear Solar Observatory, Big Bear City, CA 92314,

RT Modelling of CMEs Using WSA- ENLIL Cone Model

Instrumental & Technical Requirements. Science objectives for helioseismology Understanding the interaction of the p-mode oscillations and the solar magnetic.

Comparison on Calculated Helicity Parameters at Different Observing Sites Haiqing Xu (NAOC) Collaborators: Hongqi, Zhang, NAOC Kirill Kuzanyan, IZMIRAN,

1 Mei Zhang （ National Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences ） Helicity Transport from the convection zone to interplanetary space Collaborators:

Coronal Mass Ejection As a Result of Magnetic Helicity Accumulation

Locating the solar source of 13 April 2006 Magnetic Cloud K. Steed 1, C. J. Owen 1, L. K. Harra 1, L. M. Green 1, S. Dasso 2, A. P. Walsh 1, P. Démoulin.

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

Practical Calculation of Magnetic Energy and Relative Magnetic Helicity Budgets in Solar Active Regions Manolis K. Georgoulis Research Center for Astronomy.

1 Introduction: Onset of solar flares and coronal mass ejections Yokoyama, T. Dept. Earth & Planetary Science, University of Tokyo Isobe, H. Univ. Tokyo.

Connecting Near-Sun CME flux Ropes to the 1-AU Flux Ropes using the Flare-CME Relationship N. Gopalswamy, H. Xie, S. Yashiro, and S. Akiyama NASA/GSFC.

WG3: Extreme Events Summary N. Gopalswamy & A. Vourlidas.

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.

Synoptic Network Workshop (HAO/NCAR, April 2013) Space Weather and Synoptic Observations V J Pizzo – NOAA/SWPC.

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,

Coronal and Interplanetary Magnetic Fields in October-November 2003 and November CMEs Vasyl Yurchyshyn Big Bear Solar Observatory,

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.

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.

Magnetic Helicity and Solar Eruptions Alexander Nindos Section of Astrogeophysics Physics Department University of Ioannina Ioannina GR Greece.

Initiation of Coronal Mass Ejections: Implications for Forecasting Solar Energetic Particle Storms Ron Moore, Alphonse Sterling, David Falconer, John Davis.

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.

BBSO 2007 Science Planning. Focal Plane Instruments AO (Wenda, Nicolas, Deqing, Patricia and Park) AO (Wenda, Nicolas, Deqing, Patricia and Park) IRIM.

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

Predicting the Probability of Geospace Events Based on Observations of Solar Active-Region Free Magnetic Energy Dusan Odstrcil1,2 and David Falconer3,4.

A New Methodology to Predict the Axial ICME Magnetic Field at 1 AU

Orientations of Halo CMEs and Magnetic Clouds

Induction Equation Diffusion term Advection term

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

Presentation transcript:

SUB-GROUP 1: Surface Solar Magnetic Fields  The central question: Can we infer the orientation of Bz of an ICME at 1 AU by focusing on the study of the surface magnetic fields? A. Nindos: Examined chirality of source region using photospheric magnetograms and coronal information (SXT & EIT), applied the coronal flux-rope model to infer the orientation of the leading edge and then compared the result with IP measurements.. Results: (1)Agreement in ~65% (12/19) of cases regarding the sign and the orientation of the field (2) In 8 cases there was no magnetic cloud (MC) at 1 AU (3) Completion of work using all unambiguously identified sources will follow.

V. Yurchyshyn: Test with two active region cases: (1)11/7/04: X2.0 flare and CME event. Erupted filament with a magnetic field orientation roughly agreeing with the orientation of the MC (2)4/9/01: System of loops disappeared in SXT. Their orientation agreed roughly with the orientation of the MC at 1 AU. NOTE: Both exercises are not automatic. Visual inspection required.  Results: (1) Two cases in which the orientation of the erupting feature agreed with MCs' orientation  Additional test: Compared the CME launch speed with the Dst index of the subsequent disturbances. As a result, Vasyl found that the geoeffectiveness of an ICME seems to correlate well with the CME's launch speed.

We’ve reached a consensus that surface magnetic fields are indeed very useful in predicting the geoeffectiveness of ICMEs, at least in some of the events HOWEVER: (1)We need more reliable ways to infer the coronal magnetic fields (calculated or measured) (2)We need more reliable MC models (3)The task is worthy but currently the technique is not able to predict the geoeffectiveness of ICMEs on a routine basis. The process is not automatic.

M. K. Georgoulis: A quantitative approach based solely on the photospheric magnetic fields. An array of tools applicable only to vector magnetograms: (1)Resolution of the 180-deg azimuthal ambiguity (2)Calculation of the photospheric velocity field vector as a solution of the ideal induction equation (3) Evaluation of the energy-helicity formula in the linear force-free approximation. Upgrade to a nonlinear force-free method in preparation.

RESULTS: (1)There seems to be significant quantitative difference between flare/CME prolific active regions and quiescent active regions in terms of the total helicity budget and the percentage of the free magnetic energy over the total magnetic energy in the configuration (2)One case showed distinctive flow differences 30 min before a M2 flare and a CME (3)In one case of an X3 flare the total magnetic helicity / free energy decreased after the event, thus allowing a lower-limit estimation of the event’s helicity and free energy content NOTES: (1)More active region cases obviously needed (2)Large error bars in several cases because of the lff approximation (3)Obviously, no mention about the geoeffectiveness of CMEs. Combined studies required

OVERALL CONSENSUS: Magnetic helicity is an important tool for understanding the process of CME initiation However, there are still several gaps in the understanding of the CME triggering process – moreover, several analysis tools need to be refined We need help! More people need to become involved, and more data need to be contributed. If the above results are backed up by a sufficient statistical sample of cases, a promising forecasting ability may emerge