Profiling the Largest Solar Explosions

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.

Aurora over Valkeakoski, Finland Sept. 15, 2000 as a  result from the corresponding Sept. 12 coronal mass ejection. › View larger

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

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

141 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 22, 2010 9:02 pm

gg says:
November 22, 2010 at 7:28 pm
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 ?
“Huge” is not the right word here. They may be large-scale, but at some distance form those fields are very weak. E.g. at the Earth the magnetic field of the solar wind is 10,000 times weaker than that of the Earth’s magnetic field [at the surface]. The magnetic field that fills the solar system is drawn out of the Sun by the hot expanding atmosphere of the Sun. There is no electric fields in the expanding solar plasma, but when the plasma [a conductor] moves into [encounters] a magnetic field [e.g. of the Earth] electric currents are generated by induction [a dynamo]. These currents have effects on the Earth’s environment [e.g. the aurorae].
J.Hansford says:
November 22, 2010 at 7:55 pm
But Leif, you must also acknowledge that there is a problem with the amount of neutrinos in the flux
Only about a third of the expected amount is observed, but that is because neutrinos oscillated between three ‘kinds’ and the early detectors were only sensitive to one of those. Newer detectors observe all three kinds and there is no longer a ‘neutrino problem’. A Nobel prize was issued for the solution of the ‘problem’: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/bahcall/
Andy Krause says:
November 22, 2010 at 8:21 pm
I was under the impression that the number of neutrinos found so far are short of the number that should be present.
See above

Brian H
November 22, 2010 9:18 pm

Tom;
Really? And just who’s been feeding them to the sun? Definitely more research needed, possibly even a RICO investigation!

pochas
November 22, 2010 9:30 pm

Andy Krause says:
November 22, 2010 at 8:21 pm
“I was under the impression that the number of neutrinos found so far are short of the number that should be present.”
Were you aware that there are three types of neutrinos, and earlier only one of the types was detected? When all are accounted for the number fits the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem

John F. Hultquist
November 22, 2010 9:31 pm

Leif Svalgaard says: at 7:27 pm
We do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moreton_wave
—————————–
Thanks for that tip and link. Wow. Even small and in b/w that animation is impressive. I hope they get something better, but then maybe we don’t need any massive solar flares. I’ll be careful what I wish for.

899
November 22, 2010 10:08 pm

Most interesting!
I wonder: Am I the first one to think of these CME’s as being not unlike the ‘sprites’ which are generated by lightning storms here on Earth, but are far more energetic?

CRS, Dr.P.H.
November 22, 2010 10:08 pm

See the article “MINOS Physicist Wins APS Tanaka Dissertation Award” for more information about the solution to the “solar neutrino problem.”
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2006/today06-03-03.html

John Whitman
November 22, 2010 10:47 pm

Leif,
Thanks for your response on my ‘less large’.
I wish you a very more large merry and happy holidays.
John

Phil M2.
November 23, 2010 1:16 am

Leif Svalgaard
There is [assuming you meant fusion], and we find the neutrinos to prove it.
I did mean fusion but of course the statement would still be correct as was. The lack of neutrinos is just another nail in the coffin of the nuclear Sun theory, pretending that all is OK will not make it so. We have seen the attempts to fudge the missing neutrino problem and it’s about as believable as the missing heat CO2 theories. I’m waiting for the real Solar discoveries to begin.
Open your mind.

gg
November 23, 2010 3:23 am

Thanks Leif for your outstanding responses

John Day
November 23, 2010 3:46 am

@Leif
> 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 …
The positivity of the CME effects is puzzling for me because I thought the solar storm-time disturbances (Dst) were induced ring currents which opposed the Earth’s ring currents due to the solar magnetic Bz having opposite polarity from Earth’s magnetic field. Thus big storms are manifested by big (and sudden) negative dips in Dst.
If CMEs are part of the solar wind, what makes their effect positive rather than negative?

November 23, 2010 4:30 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 22, 2010 at 7:27 pm
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
=========================================================
Thanks, Leif. Lots of interesting material in this thread.

November 23, 2010 5:07 am

Phil M2. says:
November 23, 2010 at 1:16 am
The lack of neutrinos is just another nail in the coffin of the nuclear Sun theory
There is no lack of neutrinos. We observed precisely what the theory predicts.
John Day says:
November 23, 2010 at 3:46 am
If CMEs are part of the solar wind, what makes their effect positive rather than negative?
A magnetic storm begins with a compression of the magnetosphere [Dst positive] as the CME hits, followed by a build up of the ring current [Dst negative]. See, e.g. Figure 1 of http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..882M.pdf or http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/dst.html

November 23, 2010 5:25 am

Phil M2. says:
November 23, 2010 at 1:16 am
The lack of neutrinos is just another nail in the coffin of the nuclear Sun theory …
“There is no lack of neutrinos. We observe precisely what the theory predicts.”
Read this carefully: http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.0118

Phil M2.
November 23, 2010 6:43 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
Read this carefully: http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.0118
Yes and I’m sure that they will get the result that they require. Meanwhile, other researchers find yet another ‘flavour’ so they had better leave a few percent for this.
An electron neutrino might become a muon neutrino, and then later an electron neutrino again. Scientists previously believed three flavors of neutrino exist. In this Mini Booster Neutrino Experiment, dubbed MiniBooNE, researchers detected more oscillations than would be possible if there were only three flavors.
I’ll bet there will be five flavours in a few years or as many are required.

Richard S Courtney
November 23, 2010 7:44 am

Leif Svalgaard:
I write to offer you my sincere thanks.
What I know about the Sun is so little that it would probably not cover a postage stamp, so I am not capable of assessing your responses to points and questions made above.
But I can see your genuine attempts to present and explain your views together with a real attempt to engage with those who do not share your views. And I am grateful to you and to those who state their disagreements with you.
I wish your behaviour in response to challenge of your views were a model for ‘climatologists’, and I regret that it is not.
We learn from sincerely presented disagreements and genuine arguments being strongly and clearly presented by all ‘sides’ so those disagreements can be resolved. Learning is inhibited or prevented by refusal to engage in such arguments.
So, I thank you for your efforts. And I will continue to read your interactions with your critics in hope that I can remove some of my ignorance of solar science.
Richard

November 23, 2010 7:48 am

Those little pebbles of the “Flintstones’ universe” believers are lacking!…Those pebbles that smash one against the other to make fusion fire, ya know…… Fred, Fred, what can I say now?!!

November 23, 2010 8:02 am

Phil M2. says:
November 23, 2010 at 6:43 am
Yes and I’m sure that they will get the result that they require.
The miniBoone suggestion of ‘sterile’ neutrinos [only interacting through gravity]:
http://news.discovery.com/space/new-physics-discovered-by-miniboone.html
has no bearing on the neutrinos observed from the Sun [and from nuclear reactors on the Earth]. “That they require” betrays your anti-science attitude.

November 23, 2010 8:12 am

Richard S Courtney says:
November 23, 2010 at 7:44 am
But I can see your genuine attempts to present and explain your views
You might contrast that with:
Enneagram says:
November 23, 2010 at 7:48 am
Fred, Fred, what can I say now?!!

November 23, 2010 8:47 am

Richard S Courtney says:
November 23, 2010 at 7:44 am
John Langdom Davies wrote many years ago about the “Will to believe” and the “Will to disbelieve”: Both are wrong.
However the Plasma Universe proponents present reproducible LAB TESTS, neither numerology nor nice dreams.

CRS, Dr.P.H.
November 23, 2010 8:55 am

Actually, there is now photographic evidence that solar explosions are caused by Klingons. (3:00)
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvQ4vVM_SGo&fs=1&hl=en_US]

Carla
November 23, 2010 12:07 pm

..”””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.”..
..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”””..
So why can’t both camps or theories be correct here?
Was recently involved in a game of poker, when one of the players (we’ll call him Roy Rogers) tipped back his hat. I promptly folded, and started to walk away. Whilst I was walking away he shot me in the back four times. Group W picked up the heart and put it back in its locker.
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

tallbloke
November 23, 2010 12:15 pm

“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. ”
Isn’t this the wrong way round? 10,000 times more slowly?

November 23, 2010 12:25 pm

tallbloke says:
November 23, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Isn’t this the wrong way round? 10,000 times more slowly?
For once, you are correct 🙂 but often things get mangled in press releases. But the number itself seems suspect. Flows in the photosphere are usually of the order of 1 km/sec and 10,000 km/sec is not credible. What is probably meant is the inflow speed for a magnetic reconnection region, but even there the number does not look reasonable. The real problem seems to be that the photosphere is a very poor plasma and not very conducting at all [only like sea water].

November 23, 2010 12:58 pm

Carla says:
November 23, 2010 at 12:07 pm
So why can’t both camps or theories be correct here?
Both camps broadly agree that the explosion is caused by release of pent-up magnetic energy. What they are discussing are the precise details of the process. Knowing such details might make it possible to predict the explosions.

tallbloke
November 23, 2010 1:05 pm

The way I read it is they are saying it would have to be moving at 10,000km/sec to be the source of the explosion, but it moves 10,000 times more slowly, your 1km/sec.
So, if the energy is coming from below, it has to gradually build up in the atmosphere before it arcs it down to the solar surface (photosphere). What sort of energy is being gradually emitted from the photoshpere though? What form is it in?