From NASA JPL: Solar flares – they’re big and they’re fast. They can knock out a satellite or create a beautiful aurora. And the jury is still out on what causes these explosions.
Flares, and the related coronal mass ejection, shoot energy, radiation, and magnetic fields out into space that can harm satellites or humans in space. Current observations aren’t precise enough to determine whether the eruptions are driven by energy surging through the sun’s surface, or by the sudden release of energy that has slowly accumulated in the atmosphere.
This aurora over Valkeakoski, Finland on September 15, 2000 resulted from the September 12 coronal mass ejection featured in the video above. › Download video Credit: Tom Eklund
Now, a new way of looking at old data has changed all that, but the results have created more mystery: There isn’t enough energy passing through the surface during the eruption to drive the explosion.
“In some sense, the idea that energy from below triggers the eruption is the easiest explanation – like a geyser,” says Peter Schuck, a physicist who studies space weather at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “But if the idea doesn’t agree with what’s observed, then it’s wrong. End of story.”
Schuck’s research indicates that, instead, the trigger occurs in the sun’s atmosphere. “Our result shows that observations are more consistent with a slow accumulation of energy in the atmosphere,” Schuck said, “and then a sudden explosion triggered from above, more like lightning.”
Schuck studies coronal mass ejections, or CMEs, and solar flares at the place where theory and observation overlap. His latest work on CMEs appeared in the Astrophysical Journal on May 1. Schuck constructed a way to test CME and flare observations in order to limit which group of hypotheses fit the data, even when there’s not enough evidence to conclusively pick a single theory.
In the case of CMEs, the data is limited to distant movies captured by spacecraft such as the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). These movies show that CMEs begin as a gigantic arch, some 50 times larger than Earth, with each of its feet planted on the sun’s surface, or “photosphere.”
Two broad camps of theories have been developed to explain these so-called coronal loops. “The energy is built up by either a twisting motion below the surface or the release of magnetic energy in the solar atmosphere,” says Haimin Wang, a physicist at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, whose work focuses on the characteristics of the photosphere before and during solar ejections.
Either way, the energy originally comes from the surface. The question is simply whether it surges through directly before the appearance of the coronal loop or oozes up slowly over time, storing up in the atmosphere until released in a massive explosion of light, plasma, magnetic fields and high energy particles.
Distinguishing between the two options based solely on a distant movie isn’t easy. Imagine trying to figure out what powers a car when all you’ve got to go on is a movie of a highway. Worse, that movie isn’t from above, so you might easily determine the direction and speed of those cars, but from head-on or a side view where you’re not even sure of the angle.
If, however, you can infer the speed of the car, you could at the very least figure out how much energy it has and, in turn, rule out any power source that didn’t jibe with what you saw.
Schuck has done exactly that. “I developed a way to infer magnetic field motion, and therefore energy amounts, from the velocities we observe in the photosphere,” he says.
Imagine the cars again. If the cars were coming directly toward you, you could measure the wavelength of the headlights and by determining how strongly they’d been shifted by the Doppler effect (that same wave-changing effect that causes sirens to sound higher as they come toward you and lower as they move away) you could measure the car’s speed.
Schuck used similar, head-on Doppler measurements to find the velocity of solar material on the surface of the sun. This material moves perpendicular to the magnetic field at the base of the coronal loop — the crux of what Schuck is trying to understand. He can convert those initial velocities of the sun’s surface into information about the motion and energy of the magnetic field. This analysis may not spit out an exact number for the energy, but it does give a precise, accurate range of energy possibilities.
And so, for the first time, one can look at images of the sun and set firm limits on the maximum energy at a given spot – at least if the material was moving directly towards the camera to provide an accurate Doppler measurement.
The next step applies the analysis to an actual coronal mass ejection. Schuck looked at the data from a CME on September 12, 2000. This was an M-class ejection — meaning it was fairly intense, but one step below the strongest X-class — that moved directly towards Earth. Conveniently, this was also a well-studied flare, so other scientists had already examined SOHO images to measure the path, speed, and energy of the CME. This information, in turn, implies how much energy would have come through the photosphere at the start of the process had it indeed initiated from below.
The results were dramatic. The SOHO images showed the photosphere moving at speeds 10,000 times less slowly than would have been expected if it were directly triggering the eruption. “The velocity you’d need to see on the photosphere would be a thousand kilometers per second,” says Shuck. “Not only are these speeds easily detected but they would be greater than the standard measurement range of the instrument. You’d see really weird stuff in the data readouts.”
There is always the slim chance that somehow the instruments didn’t catch the extreme motion, but given how large the velocities would have had to be, Schuck thinks this is unlikely.
This still leaves a variety of theories on just how the energy is stored and what triggers its release in the atmosphere. Distinguishing between those theories will require more detailed data—something scientists hope NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, launched in February 2010 will be able to provide.
Unlike previous missions, SDO will be able to directly measure the energy in the photosphere – as opposed to Schuck’s present method of inferring that energy from velocity measurements — and it will do so with 20 times the resolution of the data on which Schuck based his current work. Such information will help narrow down what triggers a CME or solar flare even more precisely.
“Now we just need some really big CMEs to work with,” says Schuck.
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

“But if the idea doesn’t agree with what’s observed, then it’s wrong. End of story.”
Pity those studying terrestrial climate and advocating AGW can’t adopt this maxim.
There are some great shots of the 8 August 2010 CME aurora on the Nat. Geo. site (I know, I know, just have a look) My fav is “Purple Haze.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/photogalleries/100810-northern-lights-solar-cme-aurora-borealis-pictures/
CRU Orders Removal of Climate Realist Article From the Express newspaper and the paper caves in.
http://ourmaninsichuan.wordpress.com/
Pointman
I rather hope he doesn’t get lots of big CME’s to work with. They could be a “real” problem here where it counts.
Just my opinion,
Barry Strayer
“Now we just need some really big CMEs to work with,” says Schuck.
—————-
Leif,
With the predicted relatively low amplitude and (perhaps) longish Solar 24 cycle we are in, are CME’s predicted to be less frequent and/or less large?
John
But..but..we were told to come over to the dark side where the sun has no effect on weather…or…climate
…go into the light Nuke Skyhawker and only use the Force for good…
Andrew, please feel free to snip this whole comment if you wish (to stifle honest opinions) just kidding.
I really feel that we are on the edge of a new age of discovery. I have followed the LHC since 1996 on a 1200 bd dialup connection at the time. I thought it was going to validate Einstein’s theories which I bought into but understood only a little. Now I feel confident that the only thing it can prove is that there is no Higgs Boson, there was no Big Bang and the whole solar consensus is also wrong.
[[
Schuck’s research indicates that, instead, the trigger occurs in the sun’s atmosphere. “Our result shows that observations are more consistent with a slow accumulation of energy in the atmosphere,” Schuck said, “and then a sudden explosion triggered from above, more like lightning.”
]]
As much as I hate to say it, the answer is likely to be the unthinkable/unpublishable. There is no nuclear fission inside the sun, the sun is passive.
I’ll leave it at that, but you know what I wanted to say.
@Phil M2.
> As much as I hate to say it, the answer is likely to be the unthinkable/unpublishable.
> There is no nuclear fission inside the sun …
You’re right. It’s called “fusion”. a process which converts hydrogen to helium. Fission involves splitting apart heavier elements at the other end of the periodic table.
Wouldn’t determining where the source of energy is for a CME be fairly straight forward if we can view it on any angle other than straight on?
Seems to me that if the source of energy for a CME is the surface of the Sun or below the surface of the Sun, then we should see a volcano type structure of gas rise out of the surface just prior to the CME blasting particles into space.
If the source of energy for a CME is the atmosphere of the Sun, then we should see a pressure wave push back onto the surface and see reverberations from this pressure wave.
I’m not a solar physicist, so what have I missed?
[SNIP- I’m not going to have “iron sun” and “electric universe” any more than I’m going to allow chemtrails and truther theories here, take it elsewhere. – Anthony]
Phil M2;
I think you meant to write “fusion”, not “fission”.
And for a fun read along these lines, try:
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm
PJB says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:58 pm
[SNIP- I’m not going to have “iron sun” and “electric universe” any more than I’m going to allow chemtrails and truther theories here, take it elsewhere. – Anthony]
======================================================
Just bein’ th’ court jester an’ runnin’ about beltin’ th’ aristocracy with me inflated pig’s bladder here, Anthony…..
… But you will allow ” dark energy”, ” dark matter”, “black holes”, “Neutronium”, and other exotic and novel ideas to inhabit th’ conversation, eh?
*juggles some concepts, does a backflip, whacks a spectator with said pig’s bladder ;-)*
Do you suppose they could pass that along to Gavin and James?
“Now we just need some really big CMEs to work with,” says Schuck.
No thank you. Having been reading about the Carrington Event, another one of those is the last thing we need. Although they may generate useful data, they’re also rather hard on our infrastructure.
Kudos to NASA’s Solar Research that has to make up for it’s retarded climate science and propaganda thus saving some of the former status and integrity of what once was an incredible organization.
John Whitman says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:06 pm
With the predicted relatively low amplitude and (perhaps) longish Solar 24 cycle we are in, are CME’s predicted to be less frequent and/or less large?
Less frequent, but not less large [sic]. The ‘size’ depends on local conditions on the Sun and the CME blows when the field locally can no longer contain the filament. Here is a plot of the number of strong geomagnetic storms as a function of time and their frequency clearly depends on the strength of each cycle. The bottom panel sows the strongest storm in each year and although there is solar cycle dependence, the strength does not have any clear dependence on the size of each cycle.
Ben Hillicoss says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Phil M2. says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:10 pm
There is no nuclear fission inside the sun, the sun is passive.
There is [assuming you meant fusion], and we find the neutrinos to prove it.
John Whitman says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Here is a plot… http://www.leif.org/research/Number%20of%20Storms%201905-2008.png
John Whitman says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:06 pm
“Here is a plot…”
Another way to approach the problem is to plot the positive and negative averages of the Dst geomagnetic storm index. The positive part is an indication of the effect a CME has when impacting the Earth:
http://www.leif.org/research/Dst-Positive-Negative-1905-now.png
This is shown by the upper [blue] curve which does not have any clear long-term trend.
scott ramsdell says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:56 pm
If the source of energy for a CME is the atmosphere of the Sun, then we should see a pressure wave push back onto the surface and see reverberations from this pressure wave.
We do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moreton_wave
So if there is not enough energy coming from below. Then that means either :
1) energy is magically created from nothing in the atmosphere of the sun
or
2) the sun gets some of it`s energy from the huge plasma/magnetic/electric fields that connect the Sun to the rest of the solar system ?
Dont get me wrong, I`m not saying “iron sun” blah blah blah. But the sun does have a huge magnetic field connected to the rest of the solar system. It spews out Plasma, which is an electric conductor. The planets and the sun rotate. Electric conductors (plasma) rotating in a magnetic field generate electricity.
I know little about the Electric Universe stuff, but the above sounds just as plausible as Dark Energy ? What am I missing ?? Please correct me ?
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 22, 2010 at 7:03 pm
“…There is [assuming you meant fusion], and we find the neutrinos to prove it.”
======================================================
But Leif, you must also acknowledge that there is a problem with the amount of neutrinos in the flux… There is a considerable lack of neutrinos which reach the Earth that should, if the Fusion model of the Sun was to be validated by neutrino flux observations……
Thus a hypothesis heaped upon a hypothesis seems to have been presented which then contended that the neutrinos “changed flavor”( excerpt from SNO results… In summary, the results presented here are the first direct indication of a non-electron flavor component in the solar neutrino flux and enable the first determination of the total flux of 8Bneutrinos generated by the Sun.) somehow between or while exiting the Sun(or rather the mathematical model that represents the Sun) and the instrumentation that measures the neutrinos on Earth(real observations of actual phenomenon complete with the complexity of attempting to measure problematic high speed/energy particles)
Thus there is now this paper that “solves” the lack of neutrinos in the flux problem…. But for people who still ask questions…. There is still a neutrino problem. Yes?
Also read about NASA JPL Volcano SensorWeb Program http://sensorwebs.jpl.nasa.gov/
This Program provides us with incredible pictures like this:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/
There is [assuming you meant fusion], and we find the neutrinos to prove it. I was under the impression that the number of neutrinos found so far are short of the number that should be present.
“they’re big and they’re fast. They can knock out a satellite or create a beautiful aurora. And the jury is still out on what causes these explosions.”
-Burritos!
Maybe its teeny little bits of dark matter hitting the surface. Heck they use it to explain all the other things that dont add up.. why not now?