Page 1
Global Energetics of Solar Flares
and CMEs: Magnetic, Thermal,
Non-thermal, and CME energies
Markus Aschwanden
Gordon Holman
Yan Xu
Ju Jing
Paul Boerner
Daniel Ryan
Amir Caspi
James McTiernan
Harry Warren
Aidan O’Flannagain
Eduard Kontar
http://www.lmsal.com/~aschwand/2016_RHESSI_Graz.ppt
15th RHESSI Workshop, July 26-30, 2016 University of Graz, Austria
Total nonpotential magnetic energy of AR before flare ENP(tstart)
Time t
Ene
rgy E
Total potential magnetic energy of AR
EP
Free Energy
Nonpotential magnetic energyENP(t)
CME kinetic energy
SEP (particle energy)
SXR thermal energyHXR (e,p) particles
Bolometric energy
Page 2
Publications and Contents of Talk:
(1)Global Energetics of Solar Flares: I. Magnetic Energies”,
(Aschwanden, Xu, & Jing 2014, ApJ 797, 50)
(2)Global Energetics of Solar Flares: II. Thermal Energies”,
(Aschwanden, Boerner, Ryan, Caspi, McTiernan, Warren,
2015, ApJ 802, 53)
(3)Global Energetics of Solar Flares: III. Nonthermal Energies”,
(Aschwanden, Holman, O’Flannagain, Caspi, McTiernan,
& Kontar 2016, ApJ, subm.)
(4)Global Energetics of Solar Flares: IV. Coronal Mass
Ejection Energies, 2016, (Aschwanden, ApJ, subm.)
Page 3
What is the Energy Partition in Solar Flares and CMEs?
SMM Workshop (Wu et al. 1984, ch. 5)
Page 4
Fundamental Questions about Energy Partition in Flares/CMEs:
Does magnetic (reconnection) supply sufficient energy
to accelerate (nonthermal) particles ?
Emag = (Ent + Ecme+…)
Emag > Ent
Is the dissipated magnetic energy in flares sufficient
to launch a CME ?
Emag > Ecme
Ecme = (Ekin + Egrav + ESEP + ... )
Emag > (Ekin + Egrav)
Does the thick-target bremsstrahlung model explain
the thermal flare energy ?
Ent > Eth
Page 5
Previous study:
“Global Energetics of 38 large solar eruptive events” (Emslie et al. 2012, ApJ 559, 71)
Limitations: (i) no non-potential magnetic field computations
(ii) no imaging (EUV, SXR) data to measure flare areas
(iii) small-number statistics (largest flares only)
(iv) statistically incomplete sampling (above any threshold)
(v) isothermal energy neglects multi-thermality
Page 6
Data of SDO Global Energetics Survey Project
Project: Survey on the global energetics of solar flares
and CMEs observed with SDO, including data from
AIA, HMI, RHESSI, GOES.
Dataset: 2010-2014, first 5 years of SDO mission
399 GOES flares (28 X- and 371 M-class)
177 flares near disk center (<45 deg longitude)
Analysis: 177 flares are suitable for magnetic modeling
FOV=0.25 solar radii
GOES flare start (-0.5 hr) and end time (+0.5 hr)
AIA cadence of 0.1 hr (6 min)
6 AIA filters: 94, 131, 171, 193, 211, 335 A
used for automated loop tracing
AIA pixel size = 0.6”
HMI magnetogram Bz line-of-sight component
HMI pixel size = 0.5” (rebinned by 2 pixels)
Page 7
Instrument Coverage for Global Flare Energetics Project
Page 8
Magnetic Energetics
Page 9
Coronal Non-Linear Force-Free Field Forward-Fitting Method
Aschwanden et al. (2012)
Page 10
Analytical approximation
of vertical-current model
with buried magnetic
charges
Difference between
a potential field and
a nonpotential field
(with vertical twist)
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
Potential Field SIM07
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
NLFFF Forward-Fit SIM07
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
Potential Field SIM08
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
NLFFF Forward-Fit SIM08
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
Potential Field SIM09
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
NLFFF Forward-Fit SIM09
Aschwanden (2013)
Solar Phys. 287, 369.
Page 11
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
-0.35
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
0
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17
18
19 20
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
0 10 20 30 40Misalignment angle m (deg)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600m= 6.90
20110215_011400, EVENT=12, FRAME= 0 / 13, RUN=run02
NOAA =11158
Hel.pos. =S21W12
FOV =0.25
[x1,x2] = 0.0628, 0.3128
[y1,y2] =-0.3635, -0.1135
wave,nsm1, = 6, 3
thresh0,2,nsig =0.0, 3.0, 3.0
rmin,lmin,ngap = 25, 25, 3
ds,nh =0.0020, 5
dx_euv = 0.000618 Rsun
dx_mag = 0.001500 Rsun
nmag = 100 / 100
n_nlfff = 25
dfoot,dprox = 0.015, 0.015
nloopw,qripple = 200, 0.50
nall,ngood,nf =497/298/285
n1,n2,n3,n4,n5 =11/0/0/188/0
niter = 25 / 73/100
hmin,hmax =0.001, 0.200
nseg,mdim = 9, 2
nsmax = 200
da0 = 1.0
misalign = 6.9 deg
div-free = 4.5e-05
force-free = 1.1e-04
weight curr = 4.3e-01
qB_rebin = 1.017
qB_model = 1.091
qiso_corr = 2.467
E_P = 917.1 x 1030 erg
E_free = 120.1 x 1030 erg
E_NP/E_P = 1.131
CPU = 338.7 s
A 3D best-fit
solution of the
vertical-current
NLFFF
approximation
fitted to traced
coronal loops
in AIA images.
Median 2D
misalignment
angle between
NLFFF model
and observed
loops is 7 deg.
--- loop tracings
--- field lines
o magn charges
Page 12
Flare # 3: 2010-08-07 17:55 UT
0
20
40
60
80
100
Efr
ee [
10
30 e
rg]
Enp= 284Ep = 234
DE= -15.1+DE= -15.1_ 0.8DE/Ep= -6 %
run2
17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0Time [hrs]
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
GO
ES
flu
x [10
30 e
rg]
M1.0
Flare # 4: 2010-10-16 19:07 UT
0
10
20
30
40
50 Enp= 164Ep = 146
DE= 0.9+DE= 0.9_ 1.3DE/Ep= 0 %
18.6 18.8 19.0 19.2 19.4 19.6 19.8Time [hrs]
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
M2.9
Flare # 10: 2011-02-13 17:28 UT
0
20
40
60
80 Enp= 659Ep = 629
DE= -19.0+DE= -19.0_ 2.3DE/Ep= -3 %
17.0 17.2 17.4 17.6 17.8 18.0 18.2Time [hrs]
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
M6.6
Flare # 11: 2011-02-14 17:20 UT
0
50
100
150
200
Efr
ee [1
03
0 e
rg]
Enp= 960Ep = 867
DE= -2.5+DE= -2.5_ 3.2DE/Ep= 0 %
16.8 17.0 17.2 17.4 17.6 17.8 18.0Time [hrs]
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
GO
ES
flu
x [10
30 e
rg]
M2.2
Flare # 12: 2011-02-15 01:44 UT
0
50
100
150
200 Enp= 947Ep = 843
DE= -13.7+DE= -13.7_ 2.6DE/Ep= -1 %
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6Time [hrs]
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
X2.2
Flare # 13: 2011-02-16 01:32 UT
0
50
100
150
200
250 Enp= 926Ep = 780
DE= -28.2+DE= -28.2_ 1.7DE/Ep= -3 %
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2Time [hrs]
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
M1.0
Flare # 14: 2011-02-16 07:35 UT
0
50
100
150
200
250
Efr
ee [10
30 e
rg]
Enp= 979Ep = 849
DE= -6.8+DE= -6.8_ 1.7DE/Ep= 0 %
7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4Time [hrs]
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
GO
ES
flu
x [
10
30 e
rg]
M1.1
Flare # 15: 2011-02-16 14:19 UT
0
100
200
300
400 Enp=1010Ep = 849
DE= -18.8+DE= -18.8_ 1.6DE/Ep= -2 %
13.8 14.0 14.2 14.4 14.6 14.8 15.0Time [hrs]
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
M1.6
Flare # 16: 2011-02-18 09:55 UT
0
20
40
60
80 Enp= 624Ep = 602
DE= -3.8+DE= -3.8_ 2.8DE/Ep= 0 %
9.4 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8Time [hrs]
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
M6.6
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05
-0.35
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
0 10 20 30 40Misalignment angle m (deg)
0
20
40
60
80 m= 3.9020110213_165800_waveiev,it,vers= 10, 0, run2
NOAA =11158
Hel.pos.=S21E04
FOV =0.25
LOOP TRACING:fov[x1,x2]=-0.1961, 0.0539
fov[y1,y2]=-0.3638, -0.1138
nsm1 = 3
qmed, nsig_d =3.0, 3.0
rmin, lmin = 30, 30
dx_euv =0.000617 solar radii
nwave =6
MAGNETIC SOURCES:dsmag =0.0015
nmag,nmagmax= 56 100
dfoot = 0.015
wfit,bmin= 5, 300 G
LOOP SELECTION:nloopw/filter= 100
nf = 279
NLFFF FORWARD-FIT:nitmin,niter,iter= 3, 6, 6
ds, hmax =0.0020, 0.150
nseg, nsmax = 7, 200
da0 =10.0
RESULTS:misalign= 3.9 deg
div-free= 5.1e-05
force-free= 1.0e-04
weight curr= 6.1e-01
B_rebin/B_full = 1.022
B_model/B_rebin= 0.953
qiso_corr= 2.467
E_NP = 699.8 x 1030 erg
E_P = 667.0 x 1030 erg
E_free = 32.8 x 1030 erg
E_NP/E_P = 1.049
CPU = 137.9 s
Decrease of free energy
for event #10 (M6.6 flare):
dEflare=-(19±2) x 1032 erg
Free Magnetic Energy
Page 13
1 10 100 1000 10000Dissipated energy (COR) E[10 30 erg]
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
Occurr
en
ce fre
que
ncy
a= 2.00_a= 2.00+ 0.21N= 172
10 100 1000Length L[Mm]
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
Occurr
en
ce fre
que
ncy
a= 3.75_a= 3.75+ 0.26N= 172
1 10 100 1000 10000Peak dissipation rate P[10 30 erg/0.1 hr]
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
Occurr
ence
fre
que
ncy
a= 2.30_a= 2.30+ 0.15N= 172
102 103 104 105
Area A[Mm2]
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
Occurr
ence
fre
que
ncy
a= 2.08_a= 2.08+ 0.17N= 172
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00Duration D[hrs]
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
Occurr
ence
fre
quen
cy
a= 2.36_a= 2.36+ 0.23N= 174
103 104 105 106 107 108
Volume V[Mm3]
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
Occurr
ence
fre
quen
cy
a= 1.72_a= 1.72+ 0.11N= 172
Size Distributions of Magnetic Parameters
Magnetic
dissipated
energy
in flares:
Ediss=
1030-1033 erg
Power law size distributions indicate self-organized criticality
Page 14
Statistics :
82 of 169 (50 %) show a
significant energy decrease
during flares
49 of 169 (30%) show
an apparent energy increase
34 of 169 (20%) show
no significant changes
ENP/EP = 1.16 ± 0.08
Efree/EP = 0.17 ± 0.09
dEflare/EP = 0.04 ± 0.03
dEflare/Efree = 0.26 ± 0.20
dEflare/EGOES = 600 ± 500
Aschwanden et al. (2014) RUN2
10 100 1000 10000Potential energy Ep [1030 erg]
10
100
1000
10000N
on
pote
ntia
l e
ne
rgy E
NP [
10
30 e
rg]’
ENP/EP = 1.165 _ENP/EP = 1.165 + 0.083
N= 82/ 169
10 100 1000 10000Potential energy Ep [1030 erg]
10
100
1000
10000
Fre
e e
ne
rgy E
free [
10
30 e
rg]’
Efree/EP = 0.167 _Efree/EP = 0.167 + 0.086
10 100 1000 10000Potential energy Ep [1030 erg]
1
10
100
1000
Fla
re e
ne
rgy E
fre
e [10
30 e
rg]’
Eflare/EP = 0.037 _Eflare/EP = 0.037 + 0.028
1 10 100 1000Free energy E free [1030 erg]’
1
10
100
1000
Fla
re e
ne
rgy E
fre
e [10
30 e
rg]’
Eflare/Efree = 0.259 _Eflare/Efree = 0.259 + 0.195
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000100.000GOES fluence EGOES [1030 erg]’
1
10
100
1000
10000
Fla
re e
ne
rgy E
fre
e [
10
30 e
rg]’
Eflare/EGOES = 616 _Eflare/EGOES = 616 + 533
10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2
GOES flux [W m-2]
1
10
100
1000
10000
Fla
re e
ne
rgy E
fre
e [
10
30 e
rg]’
C M X
Page 15
1 Variable Gaussian + 3 fixed Gaussian DEM
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0
18
19
20
21
22
log(E
M)
2 Variable Gaussian DEM
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0
18
19
20
21
22
log(E
M)
Narrowband 6 fixed Gaussian DEM
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0
18
19
20
21
22
log
(EM
)
Broadband 6 fixed Gaussian DEM
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0Temperature log(T)
18
19
20
21
22
log
(EM
)
Thermal Energetics
Page 16
AIA + HMI / SDO
2011-Feb-14
20:35 UT
(5 hrs before
X2.2 flare)
FOV=0.3 R
Aschwanden, Sun & Liu
(2014)
Page 17
Nominal AIA Thermal Response Functions
Empirical AIA 94 A response function:
Page 18
Te peak
EM peak
Spatial Synthesis Gaussian DEM fits
6 AIA filter fluxes:
Gaussian DEM distribution:
Least-square fit:
Flux uncertainty:
Page 19
log(T)
log
[DE
M(T
)]
Binsize = 256 pixels
Binsize = 128 pixels
Binsize = 32 pixels
Binsize = 16 pixels
Binsize = 4 pixels
Binsize = 2 pixels
Differential Emission Measure (DEM) Distributions
spatially synthesized from single-Gaussians in each macropixel
Aschwanden et al. (2015)
Page 20
22
23
24
25
26
27
log(E
M)
(a) min[L]
2.0
17.7
#256) 20121120_1206, M1.7
22
23
24
25
26
27lo
g(E
M)
(b) max[L] 6.3
14.8
#132) 20120127_1707, X1.7
22
23
24
25
26
27
log(E
M)
(c) min[Tp]
0.524.2
#305) 20131015_0756, M1.8
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0log(T)
22
23
24
25
26
27
log(E
M)
(d) max[Tp]28.228.9
# 67) 20110907_2202, X1.8
(e) min[Tw] 4.0 5.7
#102) 20111022_0930, M1.3
(f) max[Tw]
15.841.6
#316) 20131024_1000, M3.5
(g) min[ne]
1.6
20.8
#396) 20140130_0603, M2.1
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0log(T)
(h) max[ne]12.6
29.5
#375) 20140102_0154, M1.7
(i) min[EM]
3.2
20.0
#241) 20120930_0357, M1.3
(j) max[EM]
14.121.7
#147) 20120306_2332, X5.4
(k) min[D]
3.229.5
# 56) 20110803_0359, M1.7
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0log(T)
(l) max[D] 5.6 16.4
#130) 20120119_1314, M3.2
Examples of Spatial-Synthesis DEMs during 12 Flares
Peak T
EM-weighted T
Page 21
1 10 100Length L[Mm]
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
Occurr
en
ce fre
quency
aL= 3.3+aL= 3.3_ 0.3N= 391
(a)100 101 102 103 104 105
Volume V[Mm3]
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
Occurr
en
ce fre
quency
aV= 1.7+aV= 1.7_ 0.2N= 391
(b)
1 10 100Temperature Tw [MK]
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
Occu
rrence
fre
qu
ency
aTw=-2.8+aTw=-2.8_ 0.4N= 399
(c)1010 1011 1012
Electron density ne [cm-3]
10-11
10-10
10-9
10-8
Occu
rrence
fre
qu
ency
an= 2.6+an= 2.6_ 0.3N= 391
(d)
107 108 109 1010 1011
Emission measure [1040 cm-3]
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
Occurr
ence f
reque
ncy
aEM= 2.2+aEM= 2.2_ 0.2N= 391
(e)0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Thermal energy E[1030 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
Occurr
ence f
reque
ncy
aEth= 1.8+aEth= 1.8_ 0.2N= 390
(f)
0 1 2 3 4 5Goodness-of-fit chi2
0
10
20
30
40
Occurr
ence f
requen
cy
median=1.3
(g)
Size Distributions of Thermal Parameters
Power law distributions of N(L), N(V), N(EM) and N(Eth)
indicate self-organized criticality
Page 22
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0Length L[Mm]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00T
he
rma
l e
ne
rgy E
[10
30 e
rg]
log(y)= -1.5+( 2.28+log(y)= -1.5+( 2.28_ 0.11)*log(x)
N=390(a)
100 101 102 103 104 105 106
Volume V[Mm3]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
Th
erm
al e
ne
rgy E
[10
30 e
rg]
log(y)= -1.5+( 0.76+log(y)= -1.5+( 0.76_ 0.04)*log(x)
N=390(b)
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0Temperature Tp [MK]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
Th
erm
al en
erg
y E
[10
30 e
rg]
N=390(c)
1 10 100Temperature Tw [MK]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
Th
erm
al en
erg
y E
[10
30 e
rg]
N=390(d)
1010 1011 1012
Electron density ne [cm-3]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
The
rma
l e
ne
rgy E
[10
30 e
rg]
log(y)= 29.8+(-2.65+log(y)= 29.8+(-2.65_ 1.19)*log(x)
N=390(e)
107 108 109 1010 1011
Emission measure [1040 cm-3]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
The
rma
l e
ne
rgy E
[10
30 e
rg]
log(y)=-10.6+( 1.27+log(y)=-10.6+( 1.27_ 0.10)*log(x)
N=390(f)
Multi-thermal Energy
integrated over DEM(T)
Correlates with:
- length
- area
- volume
- emission measure
Small temperature
range (M,X-class):
(EM-weighted)
T ~ 20-30 MK
Reciprocal relationship
to density:
ne ~ (EM/V)1/2
Page 23
N= 155
106 107 108
Te
106
107
108
T_
RT
VOld values, slope= 0.74
N= 393
106 107 108
Te
106
107
108
T_
RT
V
New values, slope= 0.70
108 109 1010 1011
L [cm]
108
109
1010
1011
L_
RT
V [
cm
]
Old values, slope= 0.87
108 109 1010 1011
L [cm]
108
109
1010
1011
L_
RT
V [
cm
]
New values, slope= 0.86
109 1010 1011 1012
ne [cm-3]
109
1010
1011
1012
n_
RT
V [
cm
]
Old values, slope= 0.79
109 1010 1011 1012
ne [cm-3]
109
1010
1011
1012
n_
RT
V [
cm
]
New values, slope= 1.35
RTV Scaling Laws
Heating-dominated
Cooling-dominated
ts tetm
Tem
pera
ture
T(t
)
Tm
Tp=Tm/2
ts tp te
De
nsity n
(t)
nm
np=2nm
8 9 10 11Density log(n[cm -3])
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
Te
mp
era
ture
lo
g(T
[MK
]) nm,Tm
np,Tp
RTV
The RTV law can be applied
to solar flares at the turnover
point when heating rate
equals the cooling rate,
usually at peak of EM(t).
Here we test RTV scaling
law with measured (L,ne,Te)
hydrodynamic parameters
from 393 SDO >M1.0 flares.
Page 24
RTV test of total emission measure (EM) and multi-thermal energy (Eth)
N= 391
106 107 108
Tw [K]
106
107
108
TR
TV [K
]
log(y)= 2.55+( 0.65+ 0.16)*log(x)log(y)= 2.55+( 0.65_
(a)
108 109 1010 1011
L [cm]
108
109
1010
1011
LR
TV [cm
]
log(y)= -2.15+( 1.23+ 0.52)*log(x)log(y)= -2.15+( 1.23_
(b)
109 1010 1011 1012 1013
ne [cm-3]
109
1010
1011
1012
1013
nR
TV [cm
-3]
log(y)= -5.46+( 1.51+ 0.38)*log(x)log(y)= -5.46+( 1.51_
(c)
48 50 52 54EM [cm-3]
48
50
52
54
EM
RT
V [
cm
-3]
log(y)= -0.71+( 1.42+ 0.83)*log(x)log(y)= -0.71+( 1.42_
(d)
29 30 31 32 33 34Eth [erg]
29
30
31
32
33
34
Eth
,RT
V [e
rg]
log(y)= -0.01+( 1.01+ 0.07)*log(x)log(y)= -0.01+( 1.01_
(e)
Page 25
Ratio of Multi-thermal Energy to Dissipated Magnetic energy
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.010000.0Dissipated energy [COR-NLFFF] (10 30 erg)
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
10000.0
Therm
al energ
y
(10
30 e
rg)
N=169, qE= 0.0827, (:N=169, qE= 0.0827, (x 4.8)
(a)
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.010000.0Dissipated energy [PHOT-NLFFF] (10 30 erg)
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
10000.0
Therm
al energ
y (1
030 e
rg)
N= 12, qE= 0.7634, (:N= 12, qE= 0.7634, (x 6.5)
(b)
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.010000.0Dissipated energy [Emslie] (10 30 erg)
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
10000.0
Therm
al ene
rgy (1
030 e
rg)
N= 32, qE= 0.0045, (:N= 32, qE= 0.0045, (x 2.3)
(c)
1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034
Energy E[erg]
1
10
100
1000
Cum
ula
tive o
ccurr
ence fre
quncy N
(>E
)
1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034
Energy E[erg]
1
10
100
1000
Cum
ula
tive o
ccurr
ence fre
quncy N
(>E
)
14.0 12.9
Iso-th
erm
al
Multi-th
erm
al
Magnetic
- The multi-thermal energy amounts to 8% of the magnetic energy
(within a factor of 4.8, or a range of ~ 2%-40% )
- Magnetic (reconnection) processes are sufficient to produce
the multi-thermal flare energy
- The iso-thermal energy underestimates multi-thermal energy
by a factor of 14 (e.g., study of Emslie et al. 2012)
Page 26
Electron Energetics
Page 27
Nonthermal energy in electrons calculated from RHESSI:
- Fitting powerlaw to nonthermal photon spectrum
- Inverting electron injection spectrum (bremsstrahlung cross-section)
- Integration of electron energy spectrum E>20 keV
O’Flannagain
Et al. (2013)
Page 28
The thick-target model with the warm-target low energy cutoff
Page 29
Event # 012, GOES=X2.2, NOAA=11158
1.8 1.9 2.0
0
5.0•10-5
1.0•10-4
1.5•10-4
2.0•10-4
2.5•10-4
GO
ES
flu
x,
tim
e d
eri
vative
(a)
1.8 1.9 2.0
100
101
102
103
104
105
RH
ES
SI
flu
x (
6-3
00
ke
V)
(b)
1.8 1.9 2.0
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
Th
erm
al E
M
(c)
1.8 1.9 2.0
0
10
20
30
40
Te
mp
era
ture
[M
K]
(d)
1.8 1.9 2.0
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
No
nth
erm
al flu
x
(e)
1.8 1.9 2.0Time [hrs] (start = 2011-02-15T01:44:00)
0
5
10
15
20
Pow
erl
aw
slo
pe
nt= 34 (f)
1.8 1.9 2.0
0.1
1.0
10.0
Go
od
ne
ss-o
f-fit
chi = 1.0 (h)
1.8 1.9 2.0
0
20
40
60
Pow
er
PC
O [
erg
/s]
ECO=1343 x 1030 erg (i)
1.8 1.9 2.0
0
20
40
60
Po
we
r P
WT [
erg
/s]
EWT=1349 x 1030 erg (j)
1.8 1.9 2.0
0
10
20
30
40
Cu
toff
EC
O [
ke
V]
CO (k)
1.8 1.9 2.0Time [hrs] (start = 2011-02-15T01:44:00)
0
10
20
30
40
Cuto
ff E
WT [
keV
]
WT, CCC= 0.91 (l)
vth+thick2_vnorm
10 100Energy [keV]
10-2
100
102
104
106
108
Pho
ton
s s
-1 c
m-2
ke
V-1
(g) Example of analyzed
Flare (X2.2 GOES class
(a) GOES flux and time derivative
(b) RHESSI flux
(c) Thermal EM
(d) Electron temperature
(e) Non-thermal flux
(f) Non-thermal power law slope
(g) Spectral fit
(h) Goodness-of-fit
(i) Power (cross-over method)
(j) Power (warm-target method)
(k) Low energy cutoff (cross-over)
(l) Low energy cutoff (warm-target)
The low energy cutoffs
correlate (CCC=0.91)
between cross-over and
warm-target method
Page 30
1 10 100Temperature T
RHESSI [MK]
1
10
100
Low
-en
erg
y c
uto
ff (
wa
rm-t
arg
et)
e
wt[k
e
N=193, log(y)=-0.16+1.02*log(x)
(a)CCC= 0.55
1 10 100Low-energy cutoff (warm-target) e wt[keV]
1
10
100
Low
-energ
y c
uto
ff (
cro
ss-o
ver)
e
co[k
eV
N=156, log(y)= 0.54+0.63*log(x)
(d)CCC= 0.83
1 10 100Temperature T
RHESSI [MK]
1
10
100
Nonth
erm
al slo
pe (
warm
-ta
rget)
d
(b)CCC=-0.04
1 10 100Nonthermal slope (warm-target) d
1
10
100
Non
therm
al slo
pe (
cro
ss-o
ver)
d
N=155, log(y)= 0.56+0.43*log(x)
(e)CCC= 0.78
1 10 100Temperature T
RHESSI [MK]
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
Nonth
erm
al energ
y (
warm
-targ
et)
En
t[10
30 e
rg]
(c)CCC= 0.10
10-4 10-2 100 102 104
Nonthermal energy (warm-target) E nt[1030 erg]
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
Nonth
erm
al e
nerg
y (
cro
ss-o
ver)
E
nt[1
030 e
rg]
N=193, log(y)=-0.02+1.01*log(x)
(f)CCC= 0.98
Low-energy cutoff
is correlated with:
- temperature
- nonthermal slope
The nonthermal
energy is highly
correlated between
the cross-over and
warm-target method
(CCC=0.98)
Page 31
Non-thermal energy vs. dissipated magnetic energy
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.0010000.00Dissipated magnetic energy E mag [1030 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
10000.00
Nonth
erm
al ene
rgy E
CO [1
030 e
rg]
N= 78, qE=0.07, (:N= 78, qE=0.07, (x10.2)
(a) ECO > Emag (11%)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.0010000.00Dissipated magnetic energy E mag [1030 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
10000.00
Nonth
erm
al energ
y E
WT [10
30 e
rg]
N= 78, qE=0.07, (:N= 78, qE=0.07, (x10.1)
(b) EWT > Emag (11%)
10-4 10-2 100 102 104
Nonthermal energy ECO [1030 erg]
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
Therm
al energ
y E
th [
10
30 e
rg]
N=191, qE=0.74, (:N=191, qE=0.74, (x 8.2)
(c) Eth > ECO (39%)
10-4 10-2 100 102 104
Nonthermal energy EWT [1030 erg]
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
Therm
al energ
y E
th [
10
30 e
rg]
N=191, qE=0.74, (:N=191, qE=0.74, (x 8.0)
(d) Eth > EWT (40%)
- The non-thermal energy (in accelerated electrons) accounts in the
logarithmic mean for 7% of the dissipated magnetic energy
Magnetic (reconnection) is sufficient to accelerate particles.
- The thermal energy exceeds the non-thermal energy in 40%
“Failure of the thick-target model”, requires additional heating
sources (thermal conduction fronts, direct heating processes).
Red: ec < 20 keV
Blue: ec > 20 keV
Page 32
1 10 100 1000 10000Dissipated energy (COR)E[10 30 erg]
10-8
10-6
10-4
10-2
100
102
Occu
rren
ce f
req
ue
ncy
adiff= 2.00+0.15_
N= 172
(a)
10-4 10-2 100 102 104
Nonthermal energy warm-target, peak [erg]
10-8
10-6
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
Occu
rren
ce f
req
ue
ncy
adiff= 1.50+0.11_
N= 193
(b)
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0Thermal energy E[1030 erg]
10-8
10-6
10-4
10-2
100
102O
ccu
rre
nce
fre
qu
en
cy
adiff= 2.02+0.10_
N= 391
(c)
101 102 103 104 105
RHESSI duration [s]
10-8
10-6
10-4
10-2
100
Occu
rre
nce
fre
qu
en
cy
adiff= 3.09+0.18_
N= 290
(d)
101 102 103 104 105
RHESSI peak counts [cts/s]
10-8
10-6
10-4
10-2
100
Occu
rre
nce
fre
que
ncy
adiff= 1.99+0.12_
N= 291
(e)
104 105 106 107 108 109
RHESSI total counts [cts]
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
Occu
rre
nce
fre
que
ncy
adiff= 1.66+0.10_
N= 291
(f)
Power law
distributions
of magnetic,
nonthermal,
and thermal
energies.
Page 33
1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034
Energy E[erg]
1
10
100
Cu
mula
tive o
ccurr
ence
fre
quncy N
(>E
)
1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034
Energy E[erg]
1
10
100
Cu
mula
tive o
ccurr
ence
fre
quncy N
(>E
) Therm
al
Nonthermal
Magnetic d
issipatio
n
N = 78 (a)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0E
th/E
mag
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nu
mbe
r of
events
median=0.08 (b)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0E
th/E
nt
0
5
10
15 median=0.74 (c)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0E
nt/E
mag
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 median=0.07 (d)
Size distributions for magnetic, thermal, nonthermal energies
The ratio of nonthermal to dissipated magnetic energies
varies systematically with the flare magnitude.
Page 35
CME Mass Determination from White Light Coronagraphs
Page 36
CME Mass Determination from EUV Dimming
-2 0 2 4 6EW [solar radii]
-2
-1
0
1
2
NS
[sola
r ra
dii]
EUVI FOV
COR2 FOV
EUV dimming
Missing mass
COR2 WL
Excess mass
4
5
6
7
8
9
Aschwanden et al. (2009)
ApJ 706, 376
0 2 4 6 8 10Cor2/A,B CME mass [1015 g]
0
2
4
6
8
10
EU
VI/A
,B C
ME
ma
ss [10
15 g
]
0
1
2
3 6
7 8
Confusion limit
Page 37
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5EW direction x [Rsun]
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
Lin
e-o
f-sig
ht dir
ection
z [R
sun]
Sun center Limb CME
Halo CME
Limb CME
Halo CME
Limb CME
Halo CME
l
L
l sin(r)L cos(r)
Lp
r
Geometry of CME-related Dimming Volume
Correction for center-limb variation of dimming area and volume
Page 38
t0
t1
CME
t2
CME
t0
t1
CME
t2
CME
CME at limb
CME at disk center
CME Radial Adiabatic Expansion Model
Observables:
- Emission measure dEM(x,y,T)
- Dimming area A
- EUV dimming curve EM(t)
Page 39
CME Kinematics
-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15Time t[hrs]
0
2•106
4•106
6•106
8•106
1•107
Acce
lera
tion a
[cm
/s2]
Acceleration:Model 1: constant with step functionModel 2: linearly decreasingModel 3: quadratically decreasingModel 4: exponentially decreasing
-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
0
2.0•103
4.0•103
6.0•103
8.0•103
1.0•104
1.2•104
Spee
d v [km
/s]
-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
0
2
4
6
8
Dis
tance x [R
su
n]
-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15Time t[hrs]
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Em
isis
on m
easure
[cm
-3]
Fitting of CME kinematics to observed dimming profile EM(t)
Page 40
#171 2012-06-06T20:42:10.10
Flu
x (
t ma
x)
19
3 A
Diffe
ren
ce
im
age
(t m
in-t
max)
193
A
5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5log(T[K])
17
18
19
20
21
log
(EM
) [c
m-5 K
-1])
19.8 20.0 20.2 20.4 20.6 20.8Time t[hrs]
0
5
10
15
Em
issio
n m
easu
re [
10
27 c
m-3]
sta
rt
peak
end
a D=0.3 hrsL=152 Mmq=0.96v= 329 km/schi=0.9
#253 2012-11-13T06:08:08.68
SIMPLE EVENTS
5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5log(T[K])
17
18
19
20
21
22
5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2Time t[hrs]
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
sta
rt
peak
end
b D=0.2 hrsL=191 Mmq=0.96v= 656 km/schi=1.0
#341 2013-11-03T05:54:06.84
5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5log(T[K])
17
18
19
20
21
22
5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0Time t[hrs]
0
5
10
15
20
sta
rt
peak
end
c D=0.2 hrsL=115 Mmq=0.96v= 467 km/schi=0.8
Three examples
of analyzed flares:
(a) Flux I193(x,y)
(b) Difference image
with dimming area
(c ) Emission measure
DEM(T)
(d) EUV dimming
profile of total
emission measure
EM(t)
The total emission measure
Includes all emission in the
Temperature range of 0.5-20 MK
Dimming is a density rarification
and not a cooling effect !
Page 41
Statistics of CME and dimming parameters
Page 42
Simple event
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
d
Complex event
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
0
1
2
3
D
Complex event
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
0
1
2
3
Simple and complex EUV dimming events
Complex events consist of multiple time-delayed dimming episodes.
Fitting of complex events with single adiabatic expansion model
underestimates CME speed !
Page 43
103 104 105
Projected area Ap[Mm2]
102
103
104
105
106
Surf
ace a
rea L
2[M
m2]
slope= 1.52+ 0.11slope= 1.52_R=0.93
a)
10 100 1000Length scale L[Mm]
103
104
105
Pro
jecte
d a
rea
A
p[M
m2]
slope= 1.32+ 0.09slope= 1.32_R=0.93
b)
10 100 1000Length scale L[Mm]
104
105
106
107
108
CM
E s
ourc
e v
olu
me V
[Mm
3] slope= 1.98+ 0.02slope= 1.98_
R=0.99
c)
104 105 106 107 108
CME source volume V[Mm3]
1
10
100
1000
Em
issio
n m
easure
E
M[1
02
7 c
m-3]
slope= 0.85+ 0.43slope= 0.85_R=0.57
d)
104 105 106 107 108
CME source volume V[Mm3]
108
109
1010
Ele
ctr
on d
ensity n
E[c
m-3] NAIA= 399
e)
104 105 106 107 108
CME source volume V[Mm3]
1
10
Ele
ctr
on tem
pera
ture
T
E[M
K]
NAIA= 399
f)
104 105 106 107 108
CME source volume V[Mm3]
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
CM
E m
ass
M[1
01
5 g
]
slope= 1.07+ 0.06slope= 1.07_R=0.95
g)
10 100 1000 10000CME speed [km/s]
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
100.000
1000.000
kin
etic e
ne
rgy E
kin[1
03
0 e
rg] slope= 2.21+ 0.20slope= 2.21_R=0.91
h)
10 100 1000Length scale L[Mm]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
Dim
min
g fra
ction
q
dim
m
NAIA= 399
i)
10 100 1000Length scale L[Mm]
10
100
1000
10000
CM
E s
pee
d [k
m/s
]
NAIA= 399
j)
10 100 1000Length scale L[Mm]
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
100.000
1000.000
kin
etic e
ne
rgy
Ekin[1
03
0 e
rg] NAIA= 399
k)
Correlations of
EUV dimming
parameters
Page 44
Correlations of
GOES and AIA
Temporal
parameters
10 100 1000 10000AIA dimming half time thalf[s]
10
100
1000
10000
AIA
CM
E p
ropa
ga
tion
tim
e
t pro
p[s
]
slope= 1.46+ 0.33slope= 1.46_R=0.80
a)
10 100 1000Length scale L[Mm]
10
100
1000
10000
AIA
dim
min
g h
alf tim
e t h
alf[s
]
NAIA= 399
b)
10 100 100Length scale L[Mm]
10
100
1000
10000
AIA
CM
E p
ropa
ga
tion
tim
e
t pro
p[s
]
NAIA= 399
c)
102 103 104 105
GOES flare duration D[s]
10
100
1000
10000
AIA
dim
min
g h
alf tim
e
t ha
lf[s
]
slope= 1.12+ 0.43slope= 1.12_R=0.67
d)
102 103 104 105
GOES rise time tr[s]
10
100
1000
10000
AIA
dim
min
g h
alf tim
e
t ha
lf[s
]
slope= 1.19+ 0.62slope= 1.19_R=0.56
e)
100 1000 1000GOES decay time td[s]
10
100
1000
10000
AIA
dim
min
g h
alf tim
e
t ha
lf[s
]
slope= 0.92+ 0.35slope= 0.92_R=0.67
f)
102 103 104 105
GOES flare duration D[s]
10
100
1000
10000
AIA
CM
E p
rop
ag
atio
n t
ime
t pro
p[s
]
slope= 1.58+ 0.58slope= 1.58_R=0.68
g)
102 103 104 105
GOES rise time trise[s]
10
100
1000
10000
AIA
CM
E p
rop
ag
atio
n t
ime
t pro
p[s
]
slope= 1.72+ 0.92slope= 1.72_R=0.55
h)
100 1000 1000GOES decay time tdecay[s]
10
100
1000
10000
AIA
CM
E p
rop
ag
atio
n t
ime
t pro
p[s
]
slope= 1.30+ 0.46slope= 1.30_R=0.69
i)
102 103 104 105
GOES flare duration D[s]
10
100
1000
10000
AIA
CM
E s
pe
ed
v[k
m/s
]
slope=-1.58+ 0.59slope=-1.58_R=0.68
j)
10 100 1000 10000AIA dimming half time thalf[s]
10
100
1000
10000
AIA
CM
E s
pe
ed
v[k
m/s
]
slope=-1.46+ 0.34slope=-1.46_R=0.79
k)
10 100 1000 1000AIA CME propagation time t pro
10
100
1000
10000
AIA
CM
E s
pe
ed
v[k
m/s
]
slope=-1.00+ 0.01slope=-1.00_R=0.99
l)
Page 45
10 100 1000Length log(L[Mm])
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000N
um
ber
of even
tsa= 3.4 _ 1.0a= 3.4 +NAIA= 399
a)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00CME volume V[1030 cm3]
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
a= 2.2 _ 0.5a= 2.2 +NAIA= 399
b)
10 100 1000 10000CME dimming time tdimm[s]
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000a= 2.5 _ 0.6a= 2.5 +NAIA= 399
c)
1 10 100 1000Emission measure log(EM 1027 cm-5)
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
Num
ber
of eve
nts
a= 2.4 _ 0.5a= 2.4 +NAIA= 399
d)
10 100 1000 10000CME speed v[km/s]
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000a= 1.6 _ 0.2a= 1.6 +NAIA= 399
e)
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0CME mass m[1015 g]
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
a= 2.0 _ 0.4a= 2.0 +NAIA= 399
f)
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000CME energy Ekin[1030erg])
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
106
Num
ber
of events
a= 1.4 _ 0.1a= 1.4 +NAIA= 399
g)
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0CME grav energy Egrav[1030erg])
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
a= 2.0 _ 0.4a= 2.0 +NAIA= 399
h)
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0CME kin+grav energy E tot[1030erg])
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
a= 2.0 _ 0.3a= 2.0 +NAIA= 399
i)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Dimming fraction qdimm
0
50
100
150
Num
ber
of
events
NAIA= 399
j)
0 2 4 6 8goodness-of-fit chi
0
50
100
150
200NAIA= 399
k)
NAIA= 399
l)
Power Law
size distributions
of CME parameters
measured in 399
flare events
Observed with AIA
Page 46
Size distributions of CME and dimming parameters
The power law slopes are consistent with the fractal-diffusive
self-organized criticality model (Aschwanden 2012).
Page 47
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0CME mass log(1015 m[g])
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
100.000
Num
ber
of
events
AIA p= 2.5LASCO p= 1.7
a)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00AIA CME mass log(1015 m[g])
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
LA
SC
O C
ME
mass lo
g(1
01
5 m
[g])
N = 218
b)
10 100 1000 10000CME velocity log(v[km/s])
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
Num
ber
of events
AIA p= 1.8LASCO p= 2.5
c)
10 100 1000 10000AIA CME velocity log(v[km/s])
10
100
1000
10000
LA
SC
O C
ME
velo
city lo
g(v
[km
/s])
N = 218
d)
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000100.0001000.000CME kinetic energy Ekin(1030 erg)
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
104
Num
ber
of e
vents
AIA p= 1.2LASCO p= 1.5
e)
10-4 10-2 100 102 104
AIA CME kinetic energy Ekin(1030 erg)
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
LA
SC
O C
ME
kin
etic e
nerg
y E
kin(1
03
0 e
rg)
N = 218
f)
Comparison of
CME masses,
speeds, and energies
LASCO/C2 vs. AIA
Page 48
-4 -2 0 2 4Distance xLE-xflare [Rsun]
0
20
40
60
80
100
Num
ber
of e
vents
delay= 2+ 1 mindelay= 2_
median= 2 min
NAIA= 275
a)
-100 -50 0 50 100Progagation delay DtdetC2 [min]
0
20
40
60
80delay= 57+40 mindelay= 57_
median= 48 min
NAIA= 275
b)
-100 -50 0 50 100Start delay tLASCO-tGOES [min]
0
20
40
60
80delay= -2+46 mindelay= -2_
median= -1 min
NAIA= 275
c)
-100 -50 0 50 100Dimming delay tdimm -tstart [min]
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Num
ber
of
events
delay= 21+24 mindelay= 21_
median= 14 min
NAIA= 399
d)
-100 -50 0 50 100Dimming delay tdimm -tpeak [min]
0
100
200
300
400
500delay= 5+ 7 mindelay= 5_
median= 5 min
NAIA= 399
e)
-100 -50 0 50 100Dimming delay tdimm -tend [min]
0
100
200
300delay= -6+11 mindelay= -6_
median= -3 min
NAIA= 399
f)
Time delay in dimming events
simultaneously observed with LASCO/C2 and AIA
Relative timing of EUV dimming start with GOES flare peak is dt=5±7 minutes
Page 49
10-5 10-4 10-3
GOES flux
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
LA
SC
O C
ME
ma
ss [
g]
slope= 0.69
R =0.32
N = 247a)
10-5 10-4 10-3
GOES flux
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
AIA
CM
E m
ass [
g]
slope= 0.81
R =0.67
N = 399b)
10-5 10-4 10-3
GOES flux
10
100
1000
10000
LA
SC
O C
ME
ve
locity [
km
/s]
slope= 0.26
R =0.36
N = 247c)
10-5 10-4 10-3
GOES flux
10
100
1000
10000
AIA
CM
E v
elo
city [
km
/s]
slope= 0.14
R =0.11
N = 399d)
10-5 10-4 10-3
GOES flux
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
LA
SC
O C
ME
en
erg
y [
erg
]
slope= 1.22
R =0.37
N = 247e)
10-5 10-4 10-3
GOES flux
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
AIA
CM
E e
ne
rgy
[erg
]
slope= 1.10
R =0.37
N = 399f)
Comparison
of CME masses,
speeds, and energies
of LASCO/C2 and AIA
with GOES flare
magnitude
Page 50
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.00Magnetic energy Ediss [1030 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
LA
SC
O C
ME
energ
y[1
03
0 e
rg] N=103, qE= 0.03, (:N=103, qE= 0.03, (x 15.5)
a)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.00Magnetic energy Ediss [1030 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
AIA
CM
E k
inetic e
nerg
y[1
03
0 e
rg]
N=172, qE= 0.01, (:N=172, qE= 0.01, (x 14.4)
b)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.Magnetic energy Ediss [1030 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
AIA
CM
E to
tal e
nerg
y[1
03
0 e
rg]
N=172, qE= 0.07, (:N=172, qE= 0.07, (x 5.4)
c)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.00Free energy Efree1N [10
30 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
LA
SC
O C
ME
energ
y[1
03
0 e
rg] N=104, qE= 0.03, (:N=104, qE= 0.03, (x 14.6)
d)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.00Free energy Efree1N [10
30 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
AIA
CM
E k
inetic e
nerg
y[1
03
0 e
rg]
N=173, qE= 0.02, (:N=173, qE= 0.02, (x 17.0)
e)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.Free energy Efree1N [10
30 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
AIA
CM
E t
ota
l e
nerg
y[1
03
0 e
rg]
N=173, qE= 0.11, (:N=173, qE= 0.11, (x 6.3)
f)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.00Thermal energy Eth [1030 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
LA
SC
O C
ME
energ
y[1
03
0 e
rg] N=241, qE= 0.49, (:N=241, qE= 0.49, (x 14.5)
g)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.00Thermal energy Eth [1030 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
AIA
CM
E k
inetic e
nerg
y[1
03
0 e
rg]
N=391, qE= 0.08, (:N=391, qE= 0.08, (x 10.7)
h)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.Thermal energy Eth [1030 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
AIA
CM
E t
ota
l energ
y[1
03
0 e
rg]
N=391, qE= 0.77, (:N=391, qE= 0.77, (x 3.5)
i)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.00Nonthermal energy Enth [1030 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
LA
SC
O C
ME
energ
y[1
03
0 e
rg] N=119, qE= 0.38, (:N=119, qE= 0.38, (x 35.7)
j)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.00Nonthermal energy Enth [1030 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
AIA
CM
E k
inetic e
ne
rgy[1
03
0 e
rg]
N=193, qE= 0.09, (:N=193, qE= 0.09, (x 17.6)
k)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00100.001000.Nonthermal energy Enth [1030 erg]
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
AIA
CM
E tota
l energ
y[1
03
0 e
rg]
N=193, qE= 0.72, (:N=193, qE= 0.72, (x 9.8)
l)
Comparison of CME
kinetic energies,
(LASCO/C2 and AIA)
and total kinetic plus
gravitational energy
with magnetic, free,
thermal, nonthermal
energies
Including the
gravitational energy
to kinetic CME energy
yields the log means:
ECME = 7% Emag
= 11% Efree
= 77% Eth
= 72% Enth
Page 51
1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034
Energy in ergs
GOES 1-8 A
SEP
Peak SXR thermal energy
Total radiation - SXR plasma
Flare ions >1 MeV
Bolometric
Flare electrons
CME kinetic energy
Magnetic energy
Comparison of this Global Flare Energetics Survey
With study of Emslie et al. (2012)
New: Magnetic energy calculated with vertical-current NLFFF, instead ad hoc
CME energy calculated from EUV dimming (AIA), instead coronagraph
Multi-thermal (spatial-synthesis DEM), instead of iso-thermal
Page 52
Conclusions :
1) The “Global Flare and CME Energetics” project entails all (399) M and X-class
flares observed with SDO during the first 3.5 years of its mission and has been
completed for 4 different forms of energies: magnetic energies (Paper I), thermal
energies (Paper II), non-thermal energies (Paper III), and CME energies (Paper IV).
2) The (logarithmic) mean ratio between different energy conversions are:
Eth = 0.07 Emag Magnetic energy is sufficient to produce thermal flare energy
Enth = 0.07 Emag Magnetic energy is sufficient to accelerate electrons
ECME = 0.07 Emag Magnetic energy is sufficient to launch CME
3) The (logarithmic) mean ratio between thermal and non-thermal energies are:
Eth = 0.7 Enth Thick-target model fails in 40% to explain thermal energy.
Other forms of heating are additionally required (thermal conduction fronts,
direct heating, wave heating).
4) CME energies determined in white-light with LASCO/C2 are based on leading
edge speed, while EUV dimming from AIA data measures bulk velocities, which
are smaller than leading edge speed, in particular in complex events.
5) Power law slopes of size distributions of all energy parameters can be modeled
with self-organized criticality models.
http://www.lmsal.com/~aschwand/ppt/2016_RHESSI_Graz.ppt
http://www.lmsal.com/~aschwand/RHESSI/flare_energetics.html