Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Published byBernadette Harrison Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "On Coronal Mass Ejections and Configurations of the Ambient Magnetic Field Yang Liu Stanford University 3/17/2016 1 COSPAR 2008."— Presentation transcript:

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

2 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

3 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)

4 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?

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

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

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

8 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)

9 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

10 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). 3/17/2016 10COSPAR 2008

11 Result IDTypeFlareDate, Time (dd/mm/yy) ARFlux (e22 Max) nB_t @ 42 Mm (Gauss) 1FEX1.106/06/00 133090265.931.5158.4 2FE------19/07/00 233090776.761.6544.2 3FE------27/05/02 180599576.981.7151.3 4FEM1.002/05/03 024703456.711.6299.3 5KIC6.807/04/97 135080271.121.7512.6 6KIC1.312/05/97 044280380.881.8812.3 7KIM6.315/06/01 095295021.991.8528.3 8KIX2.510/11/04 015606964.652.2535.9 9TIM4.016/06/05 191007753.702.0426.4 10TIM3.727/07/05 030007924.561.7433.0 3/17/2016 11COSPAR 2008 Decay index shows a clearly dividing line between failed eruptions and full eruptions, supportive of MHD simulations.

12 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±0.331.62±0.0563.3±18.0 KI2.16±1.251.93±0.1522.3±9.8 TI4.13±0.431.89±0.1529.7±3.3 KI+TI2.81±1.481.91±0.1524.7±8.2 3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008

13 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. 3/17/2016 13COSPAR 2008

14 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 14COSPAR 2008

15 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

16 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

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

18 18 3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 3D 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 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 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 21 3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 Examples of the three types of CMEs Type 1 Type 2 Type 3

22 3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 CMEs’ propagation: Result Type 1Type 2Type 3 number394614 Percentage39%47%14% Median speed (km/s)72812081443 Mean speed (km/s)883±4031345±5961530±736 22

23 3/17/2016COSPAR 2008 Open: type 1 Filled: type 2 + type 3

24 3/17/2016 COSPAR 2008 Distribution of CMEs versus flare class.

25 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 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.

27 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. 3/17/2016 27COSPAR 2008

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

Similar presentations

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

The flare-CME relationship – determining factors (if any!) Sarah Matthews, Lucie Green, Hilary Magee, Louise Harra & Len Culhane MSSL, University College.
Evolution of Magnetic Setting in Flare Productive Active Regions Yixuan Li Space Weather Research Lab New Jersey Institute of Technology.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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,

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:

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)

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.

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.

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,

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 20075 th SECCHI Consortium Meeting Observing prominence dynamics with STEREO David Alexander, Rui Liu, and Holly Gilbert Rice University

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 13 2006 Eruptive Flare Yuhong Fan High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research.

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,

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,

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.

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

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,

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

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

Similar presentations

Ads by Google